|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Harassment by Sock and Co.
Wikipedia: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[1] :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★♚♛ Talk Email 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★♚♛ Talk Email 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★♚♛ Talk Email 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: [2]. 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[3] 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:
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 talk 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)
- Hang on a minute Boing, so you think the article is now neutral? With no mention of the fact the is is an illegal occupation? I know you think I was cherry picking sources, lets see Strategic Analysis Volume 34, Issue 3, 2010 DOI:10.1080/09700161003658998 Asian Affairs: An American Review Volume 22, Issue 1, 1995 DOI:10.1080/00927678.1995.9933695 The Denning law journalStrategic Analysis all say that G-B is illegally occupied. Do you not think the article should also? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- You can find any number of sources to state that it is illegally occupied; however, you know as well as anybody that this is a disputed issue. In any case the article is not currently written from a neutral point of view because it doesn't mention the dispute. I'll add {{POV}} to the article and hopefully an editor with more knowledge can draft a section on the disputed status; however, it would be extreme POV for Wikipedia to blatantly state that it is illegally occupied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can, but those are academic ones. As was the one I used. So I am blocked for a week for using an academic source to state something which perhaps would have been better off attributed, wonderful. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- What I meant was, the fact that there are some sources that say it is illegally occupied does not mean it is illegally occupied. You can also find sources to say that it is not. Here is something that shows that it is disputed. Wikipedia should say no more and no less. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- And I agree with that. Like I said below, I read this whilst researching something else, I looked at the article and was surprised it was not mentioned, so I popped it in. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, the {{POV}} tag was removed fast. If discussion doesn't start on the topic, I'll be re-adding it because I was completely unconvinced by the edit summary from the editor who removed it. The template allows for it to be placed if, in an editor's opinion, they believe it to violate NPOV. It can remain until the dispute is resolved on the talk page. I may start an RfC on the topic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- And I agree with that. Like I said below, I read this whilst researching something else, I looked at the article and was surprised it was not mentioned, so I popped it in. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- What I meant was, the fact that there are some sources that say it is illegally occupied does not mean it is illegally occupied. You can also find sources to say that it is not. Here is something that shows that it is disputed. Wikipedia should say no more and no less. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can, but those are academic ones. As was the one I used. So I am blocked for a week for using an academic source to state something which perhaps would have been better off attributed, wonderful. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- You can find any number of sources to state that it is illegally occupied; however, you know as well as anybody that this is a disputed issue. In any case the article is not currently written from a neutral point of view because it doesn't mention the dispute. I'll add {{POV}} to the article and hopefully an editor with more knowledge can draft a section on the disputed status; however, it would be extreme POV for Wikipedia to blatantly state that it is illegally occupied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:32, 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)
(out)Thank you for starting the RFC, I will comment over there when I am able. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 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 Wikipedia; # 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 Wikipedia; # 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)
Decline reason:
This has been looked over by a number of people now, and there appears to be a clear consensus that the edits in question were very clearly in violation of NPOV, and that the block itself was reasonably within administrator's discretion. This is especially true in light of your history of blocks, several of which have been for edit warring. Note that the administrator policy states: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." This appears to be the case here, and so your request is declined. While there appears to be some dispute as to whether or not Magog was or wasn't the right person to place the block, the block itself has been found to be appropriate by several independent editors and thus is a moot point in considering appeals. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:25, 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.
- Just a couple of comments from an uninvolved admin: in general, blocks are issued for behavioural issues and not for mere content disputes; however, to consistently push a point of view on an article or a set of articles can become a behavioural problem to be dealt with through sanctions. Now, those edits were indeed problematic; personally, I'm not sure I'd have blocked, but I can see how the block is reasonable and grounded in policy and do not want to second guess an admin who is legitimately using the discretion which goes with the tools. Then again, I must admit that I don't particularly like the fact it was Magog who imposed this block. I don't think he's involved, but, speaking of appearances, Magog does not give the impression of being entirely neutral with regard to Darkness Shines, as he was arguing for DS's ban a couple of days ago. I'm not saying Magog is not neutral, I haven't really examined his actions regarding DS and TG, but admins should not only be neutral but also appear to be. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Salvio. In my opinion this is a very poor block. The editor has inserted two apparent POV statements but has neither edit warred nor engaged in any sort of tendentious editing regarding these edits. I would have no problems with DS being blocked for something like repeatedly nominating Template:Kashmir_separatist_movement for deletion - a pointy and disruptive move imo - but this? As Salvio says, an admin must appear to be neutral and that appearance is missing. Addendum: Looking at this a little further, this is even worse than I thought. Magog is essentially blocking DS for inserting sourced content into an article with the rationale that the content is POV. Perhaps it is, but admins are not supposed to be making decisions over content but rather over behavior. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. He was inserting an obviously partisan statement as if it was an indisputable fact. Doing so, even under the pretext that the statement is based on a reliable source, is obviously unacceptable – after all, being reliably sourced is not the same thing as being neutral. The unacceptable nature of this edit was so obvious it should have been recognizable to any reasonable observer who is familiar with Wikipedia policy. As such, this edit displayed not just a simple failure of neutrality in the sense of a pure content issue, but a failure to seriously strive for neutrality – which is a conduct issue and blockable disruption in itself. It is absolutely within the remit of administrators to assess such behaviour as part of their general assessment of an editor's conduct when making a block decision. In fact, we should do that far more often. Failure to strive for neutrality is blockable, so this was a good block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- The insertion was such a violation of NPOV that I support the block; however, is the duration appropriate? I understand that this editor has a history of blocks and trouble caused in Pakistan related articles, but I think the fact that the issue was inadequately mentioned to begin with is a defense. Had the article been written from a neutral point of view, this issue wouldn't have occurred. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ryan, FP, DS has not edit warred or even argued about the edits. The very nature of Wikipedia requires editors to insert material into articles and we block only if there is disruption in the form of edit warring or tendentious editing and we, as admins, can't go about unilaterally blocking people because we think a particular edit is NPOV. What this block is asking DS to do is to clear every edit before he makes it. Not very practical to say the least. If there is the sense that DS is a committed POV-only editor, then go for an RfC/U or something. A block for something like this is way beyond the brief of an admin. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Point taken, I wouldn't have made the block, but my support is in that having just been through a discussion at ANI and having a history of contentious contributions to articles relating to Pakistan, Magog the Ogre had a reason to find this disruptive. In any case, I strongly feel that the block has served its purpose and the continuation of this block is strictly punitive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ryan, FP, DS has not edit warred or even argued about the edits. The very nature of Wikipedia requires editors to insert material into articles and we block only if there is disruption in the form of edit warring or tendentious editing and we, as admins, can't go about unilaterally blocking people because we think a particular edit is NPOV. What this block is asking DS to do is to clear every edit before he makes it. Not very practical to say the least. If there is the sense that DS is a committed POV-only editor, then go for an RfC/U or something. A block for something like this is way beyond the brief of an admin. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would disagree with this block. DS do shows a history of edit warring, but as of my knowledge he has been never blocked for adding POV statements. Given the current state of the article, I would not consider that addition a good reason for a one week block. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think a substantial block for POV pushing should be proceeded with a preemptive warning especially as the blocking admin referred to a previous edit that contributed to his decision. Can somebody link to the preceding "streams of requests to stop"? This also appears to be DS's first block for this kind of infringement and I consider the duration somewhat excessive. Ankh.Morpork 16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- FPaS, you were also calling for me to be banned a week ago, I would appreciate your not commenting here again. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ankh, I have been commended by an editor who has no part in these articles not the disputes which are involved in them[4] I strive to use the best of sources, and to be as accurate to them as possible. Everyone will make the occasional mistake with sources, blocking an editor for adding content sourced to the academic press is wrong plain and simple. Magog is not only involved, he has blocked me based on a content dispute which he feels is not neutral. If he felt it was not he should have raised the issue here or on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- The insertion was such a violation of NPOV that I support the block; however, is the duration appropriate? I understand that this editor has a history of blocks and trouble caused in Pakistan related articles, but I think the fact that the issue was inadequately mentioned to begin with is a defense. Had the article been written from a neutral point of view, this issue wouldn't have occurred. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. He was inserting an obviously partisan statement as if it was an indisputable fact. Doing so, even under the pretext that the statement is based on a reliable source, is obviously unacceptable – after all, being reliably sourced is not the same thing as being neutral. The unacceptable nature of this edit was so obvious it should have been recognizable to any reasonable observer who is familiar with Wikipedia policy. As such, this edit displayed not just a simple failure of neutrality in the sense of a pure content issue, but a failure to seriously strive for neutrality – which is a conduct issue and blockable disruption in itself. It is absolutely within the remit of administrators to assess such behaviour as part of their general assessment of an editor's conduct when making a block decision. In fact, we should do that far more often. Failure to strive for neutrality is blockable, so this was a good block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Salvio. In my opinion this is a very poor block. The editor has inserted two apparent POV statements but has neither edit warred nor engaged in any sort of tendentious editing regarding these edits. I would have no problems with DS being blocked for something like repeatedly nominating Template:Kashmir_separatist_movement for deletion - a pointy and disruptive move imo - but this? As Salvio says, an admin must appear to be neutral and that appearance is missing. Addendum: Looking at this a little further, this is even worse than I thought. Magog is essentially blocking DS for inserting sourced content into an article with the rationale that the content is POV. Perhaps it is, but admins are not supposed to be making decisions over content but rather over behavior. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nangparbat
[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
&Hi. When you recently edited Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge sections to say thank you to you both. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)