|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Please comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate. 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) 13:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 23 April 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:
And another bad block, you guys are great at these. Reporting suspected sockpuppetry is not an IBAN violation as was clarified when one was filed against me. Please unblock me so I may continue editing as this block serves not to protect the project and is in fact punitive. Elen also says I filed another groundless SPI This is the first and only SPI I have filed against the user in question. I am unsure were Elen got the idea I had filed one previously. I also do not think the accusation was groundless, anyone can look at the evidence presented. I have seen users get blocked for less on DUCK. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I was actually about to make the block Elen made just before she did, but she beat me to it. This SPI though was beyond a sock filing when you listed TopGun as the master (especially after the previous SPI case where a clerk said that it was unlikely to be Nangparbat), otherwise it would have been fine. This is also not the first case you have made against TopGun. Personally, I'd call it harassment, but that's me. When you can prove you can stop going after TopGun, maybe we will look at retracting the block. Your right that this is the first public SPI you have filed, but the other ones where you have included 'private' evidence have involved TopGun. (As I said below, IBANs don't reach non-public forums) And to top of the end of your appeal, the evidence against TopGun is horribly worked up and the excuse of an edit war going on. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 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.
Notice of SPI restriction
In my SPI clerk hat, you are being restricted from:
- Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item)
- Filing against Nangparbat
- From using presenting evidence against established users
- From filling huge SPIs with multiple editors involved (5 is a general max)
This is an indefinite restriction till you can show otherwise that you will not waste SPI clerk time with baseless cases. Your normal cases (which you have been pretty good with recently) are still allowed and encouraged. Appeal is to the SPI clerk/CU team as a whole, and I will be giving them notice of this restriction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Modified: -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the history of this user and the restrictions listed above, I'd respectfully like to request that the baseless SPI this user filed against me[1] be closed ASAP. As User:MuZemike pointed out[2], this exact same report has been filed against me twice, and been rejected on both occasions. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I will not bother to file anymore then, you say I have been pretty good lately yet I am blocked for one week for filing one. Why would I bother again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, from what I recall, you and I have never really interacted before. As an SPI regular and a CheckUser I hope that this does not discourage you from ever again participating in SPI. Instead, we are asking that you carefully consider and evaluate the cases you file before you push the "save page" button. This will not only greatly reduce time spent by clerks and CheckUser's who have had to deal with your less then satisfactory requests, but will also save you future headache. If it helps, if you ever have questions regarding an SPI case that you are wanting to file, my talk page is always open. Best, Tiptoety talk 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- BTW DQ, you say above I worked up a horrible excuse of edit warring, one of those articles was locked down due to the ongoing edit war, x was the last revert before protection. The other had five reverts of the same content in two days, that also is an edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Request
Would someone be so kind as to let Elen know[3] that is Nangparbat. Her advice to him is of no use, he no longer has access to his original account as he does not recall the password. He will need permission to either create a Nangparbat2 account or be allowed to use one of his more recent ones to communicate onwiki. She can e-mail me if she wishes to know how to get his email. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- He can email WP:BASC. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will let his next sock know. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Unblock
{{|reason=Again, filing an SPI is not an IBAN violation, or at least that is what I was lead to believe as one was filed against myself and no action taken against the filer. Again, this block is punitive, not preventative. DQ is of the opinion that I had sexed up the SPI, "the report horribly worked up and the excuse of an edit war going on" in his words. He is mistaken in this as there were edit wars going on at both the articles in question. One was fully protected[4] the other 6 reverts on the same content in the space of a few hours[5] He also says he may lift the block when I prove I am not going after anyone, other than say I am not, nor will I go after anyone, I see no way of actually proving this? The first report was about a prolific sock puppeteer, and I voiced my concerns regarding this sockmaster and his contact with estabilished editors, I can think of no other way I may have been able to do that either. I give my word no further SPI's will be filed by me against anyone with whom I have an IBAN, which quite simply is all I can offer. I respectfully request I be unblocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)}}
My 2cts. Anyone reviewing this should take the following into consideration: There has been some interesting stuff going on lately. First, in the course of the content dispute on Pakistan there was a phishing link send exclusively to DS and me. Nothing of that sort happened to the other spectrum of the content dispute. Then, we had a new editor (Highstakes) as a SPA following around and harassing DS, until he (Highstakes) got blocked for exactly that behavior. Nothing of that sort happened to the other spectrum of the content dispute as far as I am aware. Then, more often than not, we have IPs popping up for the same reason. Out of the blue new accounts (like Agent X) come and act as if they were socks from the first edit they make(!). I would ask anyone involved in the investigative part of wikipedia to follow that closely, with an open mind and be aware of the technical and human resource possibilities. JCAla (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@JCAla: I have no clue what your trying to say. @DS: Could you point us to this conclusion your making that filing an SPI is not against your IBAN? (I've looked up and down the contribution chain for you and other editors back over 4 months and up and down the archives of ANI and see nothing about 1) An SPI filed against you 2) This comment that it is not an IBAN violation. Now I also did not say that you "sexed up" the SPI, you twisted my words, I said "the evidence against TopGun is horribly worked up", not the other evidence. And to clear up the second part that was horribly worded, I was trying to say that finding the excuse of an edit war, when the times in between reverts are so high, looks like a very convenient reason to file an SPI against him, and the way you present the evidence to make it look like big time gaps were real short. Now in regards to your block, regardless if your unblocked or not, the SPI ban terms are still in affect and will be enforced. And I do echo Tiptoety though that we aren't trying to discourage you on filing. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strange you do not recall it as you were e-mailed the evidence.[6] It was that one, based solely on the fact the new editor filed out references correctly. I think it was fair of me to assume that if one part of the IBAN could file an SPI then it was OK for myself to do so. I also dispute your claim that I made it look like these reverts were happening in quick succession, it was the time gaps between which made me suspicious. Think about it, if you are restricted to 1R every 24 hours, and create a sock account to help you out, would you do a revert straight away or give it some time so if your sock gets reverted a few times your turn will soon come around. It was exactly that which made me suspicious. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I remember an email (not it's context), and sorry I was looking through the cases pretty fast, I wasn't looking to spend a whackload of time looking for one case or ANI thread. So to start, I can't comment on stuff presented to me in emails, for privacy reasons, especially onwiki, unless asked to or indicated that was the intention of the user sending it to me (even then I can only sum it up). I also point out my comment here which did not point to anyone. Also TopGun when he filed said case (even if the email evidence was against you, which I can't comment on) he did not say "I think said user is Darkness Shines". You clearly went out of the way to give such a link. IBANs do not reach private emails as far as I am concerned, as they are not our jurisdiction. I am not going to give anymore comment to how I think you filed the SPI, as I can't feel the stress you may be under to get articles the right way, but I still do stand my ground as to how the evidence adds up to look like. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well I just filled it the way everyone files them, I have never known anyone to give a full chronological breakdown before. One of the edit wars was spaced out, one was not. And if IBANS do not reach private emails then why was one of mine used in the justification of this block Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, private emails not reaching IBANs, removed, I got caught in my own wording, i'm totally willing to admit that. Now, your SPI filed against TopGun against an IBAN is still the valid reason for this block, so why am I still here trying to consider your unblock request? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because your a good guy? I really do not know why But you must realize the block is not really preventative at all, it's not like I am going to file another SPI is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, private emails not reaching IBANs, removed, I got caught in my own wording, i'm totally willing to admit that. Now, your SPI filed against TopGun against an IBAN is still the valid reason for this block, so why am I still here trying to consider your unblock request? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well I just filled it the way everyone files them, I have never known anyone to give a full chronological breakdown before. One of the edit wars was spaced out, one was not. And if IBANS do not reach private emails then why was one of mine used in the justification of this block Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I remember an email (not it's context), and sorry I was looking through the cases pretty fast, I wasn't looking to spend a whackload of time looking for one case or ANI thread. So to start, I can't comment on stuff presented to me in emails, for privacy reasons, especially onwiki, unless asked to or indicated that was the intention of the user sending it to me (even then I can only sum it up). I also point out my comment here which did not point to anyone. Also TopGun when he filed said case (even if the email evidence was against you, which I can't comment on) he did not say "I think said user is Darkness Shines". You clearly went out of the way to give such a link. IBANs do not reach private emails as far as I am concerned, as they are not our jurisdiction. I am not going to give anymore comment to how I think you filed the SPI, as I can't feel the stress you may be under to get articles the right way, but I still do stand my ground as to how the evidence adds up to look like. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SudoGhost. Thank you. Osarius Talk 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- AS much as I would love to have a giggle over there, sadly I am blocked and am unable to. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, I would be happy to "proxy" a statement for you at the SPI if you like. Feel free make one here and I will copy/paste it over there. Tiptoety talk 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you tips, but there is no need to proclaim my innocence Worst SPI case, ever. It should have been closed as soon as it was opened, obvious revenge attack. BTW why has McKhan not been blocked for sockpuppetry? He had 2 other accounts and used one of those for years to edit war on an article keeping it a stub and his newest one[7] was also being used to edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, I would be happy to "proxy" a statement for you at the SPI if you like. Feel free make one here and I will copy/paste it over there. Tiptoety talk 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
To do
[1] For this[8] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Probable sock
User:Riyazulrahman probably Nangparbat[9] Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Doing his usual copyvios[10] Copy and pasted from Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: IND34577 Country: India Date: 25 March 2009 this PDF Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. 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) 22:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)- Are you fucking retarded? How the fuck have I broken this[11] restriction? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, I am not "fucking retarded", I guess anything is possible though. As for your second question which appears to be more on topic, you violated #2 which states: "Filing against Nangparbat". Did you even read it? Tiptoety talk 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It says EXCEPT. Read it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see no such word. Tiptoety talk 22:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- So your blind as well then? 1 Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item) Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- And you can go over here and finish removing the copyvios, I am fucking done helping out around here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see no such word. Tiptoety talk 22:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It says EXCEPT. Read it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, I am not "fucking retarded", I guess anything is possible though. As for your second question which appears to be more on topic, you violated #2 which states: "Filing against Nangparbat". Did you even read it? Tiptoety talk 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The restriction is less than clear. Item number one seems to make an exception for item 2 (in which case, of course, it shouldn't be an item). DS is a good nangparbat catcher and restricting him from filing SPIs in that case is probably not a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- "[..] you are being restricted from: #2 Filing against Nangparbat." The except means "you may file against long term sock masters with over 500 edits except Nangparbat. Tiptoety talk 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think DS violated his restriction, as I interpret it the same way he does. So I think he should be unblocked. That said, DS, you really need to calm down. Attacking the admin who blocked you is not going to get you unblocked — rather it will lead to the revocation of your talk page privs... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Will I fuck calm down, I have another bullshit block on my log now. It says EXCEPT. He is reading it completely wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Speaking with DQ, the way he intended it to be written was how I described above. If it is really not that clear and this was an honest mistake, the block may be lifted. Tiptoety talk 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I think a good faith unblock is warranted here (along with a clarification on the restriction). Salvio is spot on about the calming down DS. --regentspark (comment) 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Speaking with DQ, the way he intended it to be written was how I described above. If it is really not that clear and this was an honest mistake, the block may be lifted. Tiptoety talk 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Will I fuck calm down, I have another bullshit block on my log now. It says EXCEPT. He is reading it completely wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "You are restricted from: [...] 2. Filing against Nangparbat". In my view, this was not an ambiguous restriction in any sense. AGK [•] 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- DQ is saying I may not file an SPI against he sockmaster who stalks and harrases me? Are you serious? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, when DQ proposed it I read it the way DS did. Because restricting DS from filing against np is not a good idea. Most of the other editors who can recognize that sockmaster are either gone or edit only in a limited way. --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- DQ is saying I may not file an SPI against he sockmaster who stalks and harrases me? Are you serious? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think DS violated his restriction, as I interpret it the same way he does. So I think he should be unblocked. That said, DS, you really need to calm down. Attacking the admin who blocked you is not going to get you unblocked — rather it will lead to the revocation of your talk page privs... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
− (edit conflict) x3 For what it's worth, I interpreted the restriction as saying that DS was not allowed to file an SPI against any established user NOT identified as a major sockpuppeteer. However, that exception did not apply in the case of Nangparbat, in that he is also not allowed to file an SPI against Nangparbat. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 4) Without meaning to be a stickler for Teh Rulz, if you thought it was unfair to be restricted from opening SPIs about Nangparbat, you ought to have appealed it at the time—not ignored the restriction. If it was a genuine mistake then I appreciate that, but your edit was in blatant violation of the restriction... AGK [•] 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I did not ignore it, it says EXCEPT. Who in their right mind would stop an editor from filing an SPI against a sockmaster who stalks and harrases him all the time? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sorry I wasn't around sooner, real life took up some time, and my web browser went shit on me.
I can see how the restriction could be confusing,(My new comment below this -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC))and would recommend unblock in this case(not requested -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)) as it could have been interpreted the other way, with the correct understanding known this time. The correct way to read it is the way Keilana et. al. stated above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC) - So am I going to be unblocked or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well it was fucking obviously misunderstood. 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest, since blocks are not generally punitive, a good faith unblock with a restriction clarification is in order. We can discuss whether the restriction itself is useful or not later. --regentspark (comment) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well it was fucking obviously misunderstood. 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 4) Without meaning to be a stickler for Teh Rulz, if you thought it was unfair to be restricted from opening SPIs about Nangparbat, you ought to have appealed it at the time—not ignored the restriction. If it was a genuine mistake then I appreciate that, but your edit was in blatant violation of the restriction... AGK [•] 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Unblock
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This was an obvious misunderstanding. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocking in view of the discussion above. This is done in the understanding that you are now aware of the meaning of the restriction and will not b filing any SPIs against NP. I make no comment on the merits of that restriction at this time, and honestly, I'm less than certain about the authority under which it was supposed to be passed, so I would encourage you to discuss that with the people involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you and I fully intend to have this idiotic sanction removed, I will not be stopped form filing SPI's against an editor who stalks and harrases me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you are certainly welcome to try and get it removed, as far as I'm concerned, but please observe it while it's still in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well as I no longer file SPI's perhaps you would care to look at this? user:Cenima & User:Chozanm Same messing around on the Udayar article, Cenima kept blanking it, this one requesting speedy deletion of it. His sock Cenima6 requests PP[12] of an article which Cenima had been editing, Chozanm does the same on another article which Cenima had been blanking[13] The obvious connection here is this article Udayar, The master and socks continually blank it, or in this case nominate for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you are certainly welcome to try and get it removed, as far as I'm concerned, but please observe it while it's still in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)