Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) →1RR restriction: Comment |
|||
Line 277: | Line 277: | ||
**Did you express the intention of creating such an article before Darkness Shines created it? I mean, was that a case of active gaming or a mere unfortunate coincidence, meaning that DS got to it first? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
**Did you express the intention of creating such an article before Darkness Shines created it? I mean, was that a case of active gaming or a mere unfortunate coincidence, meaning that DS got to it first? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Yes, the intent was expressed first.. Mar4d invited me to create and work on one with him... (see the first link and check out the short discussion it cites from my talk page). Clearly it was read from my talk page and then created and acknowledged for that later. By the time I replied it was created already... but obviously me and Mar4d were going to work on it. Not a co-incidence in short given the discussion on my talk page and the later acknowledgement. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
:::Yes, the intent was expressed first.. Mar4d invited me to create and work on one with him... (see the first link and check out the short discussion it cites from my talk page). Clearly it was read from my talk page and then created and acknowledged for that later. By the time I replied it was created already... but obviously me and Mar4d were going to work on it. Not a co-incidence in short given the discussion on my talk page and the later acknowledgement. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
*I created that article for two reasons, the first being to piss off MAR4d as he was tagging and edit warring on an article I had created from scratch and worked hard on to bring to GA status. I will not bother to mention the other. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:09, 8 March 2012
“ | Revenge is a dish best not served. | ” |
— Today's Motto of the Day
|
Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8 - Archive 9 - Archive 10 - Archive 11 - Archive 12 - Archive 13 - Archive 14 - Archive 15 - Archive 16 - Archive 17 - Archive 18 - Archive 19 - Archive 20 - Archive 21 - Archive 22 - Archive 23 - Archive 24 - Archive 25 - Archive 26 - Archive 27 - Archive 28 - Archive 29 - Archive 30 - Archive 31 - Archive 32 - Archive 33 - Archive 34 - Archive 35 - Archive 36 - Archive 37 - Archive 38 - Archive 39 - Archive 40 - Archive 41 - Archive 42 - Archive 43 - Archive 44 - Archive 45 - Archive 46 |
Columbo
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Columbo, List of Columbo episodes". Thank you.
TUSC token d715e58608b0dfe6d2110285d0a28087
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Talk pages
Can you give me a link to the guidelines concerning editing while a talk is still in session. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean... I fear there is not policy or guideline stating that, while a change is being discussed, it must stay out of the article – at least, I'm not familiar with any. I can point you to WP:BRD, which is just an essay, but it is commonly followed.
Personally, I always suggest to avoid edit warring: if an edit is really that inappropriate, someone will certainly undo it. In my opinion, one of the pros of following WP:DR is that it allows you to attract the attention of uninvolved editors who can support your point of view, provided, of course, it is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was simply wondering how legitimate it was to revert edits of someone who is directly aware of an ongoing talk of the talk page, but continues to edit the subject anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- When an editor routinely reverts other users' edits without disussing, then sometimes a short block is issued to get his attention and persuade him to start using articles' talk pages... This is somewhat rare, but it happens. In this case, however, the other editor was discussing the edits, but, at the same time, wanted them kept in the meantime. It is frustrating, I know from first-hand experience, but, nonetheless, the correct approach is to get more outside opinions, so that others too revert him. At that point, he either gets the point and stops or perseveres and, then, gets blocked. After all, it's not like FavorLaw's edits were not "dangerous" (were not BLP or copyright violations, for instance), so there really was no rush... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was simply wondering how legitimate it was to revert edits of someone who is directly aware of an ongoing talk of the talk page, but continues to edit the subject anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Case opening
Hello! You were listed as a party to a content dispute at a post on the DRN. Per that discussion, I have opened a Mediation Cabal case here. If you feel you are no longer involved, please feel free to remove your name from the case page.
All discussion will take place on the case's talk page. Please read over the ground rules on the talk page, found here and put your sig below in the indicated spot. After that, and after you have watchlisted the page, please post a short statement in the section below 'Ground Rules' which describes your side of the dispute and what resolution you wish to see.
Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Uncivil Behavior
Hello, User:Hehest has a long history of displaying Kanndada language chauvinism. Recently, he reverted my removal of native scripts from lead (according to a recent RfC). My warning to him has resulted him in responding in a very uncivil manner calling me 'douchebag'. Please see this RicardoKlement (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have just issued a stern warning. I'd have blocked this time around, but the diff was somewhat stale, which would have made my block punitive – something frowned upon, here –. Thanks for bringing that edit to my attention. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Dalmatia
Hi Salvio giuliano. Can we have this moved to Arbitration enforcement as per my comments here. Thank you, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that would be a good idea and I'd be inclined to proceed; however, to be sure I'm not messing up, I have just asked the Arbs by mail whether they agree or think it would be inappropriate. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you :) Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I think ChronicalUsual is back again. Can we get the Sockpuppet investigation open again?
user:SuperMaher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuperMaher
SuperMaher was created just 2 hours after chronical was banned, and he is already and expert on how the Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in my response, but I had already gone to bed when you sent me this message... I see, however, that SuperMaher has been indeffed and that ChronicalUsual has suffered the same fate. Now we can only start playing whack-a-mole... And, should he become too disruptive, then we can also start semi-protecting the articles he targets... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Help via stalking
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | ||
Thanks for the clarification on User talk:Whenaxis! These CSD tags can be tricky sometimes... MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Many thanks; I'm happy to have been of help. I have just added the barnstar to my collection. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please unbloked me . I want only get bot-flag in our wiki . I dont speak English very nice and can't make request from bot flag .--«(…°°…)» talk 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Teodret. Unfortunately, for the moment, I cannot unblock TeoBot, because you are not authorised to run a bot yet. If you wish to do that, you should first submit a request for approval and, if it is successful, then you can start running your bot.
Until then, I cannot unblock the account because its username is a violation of Wikipedia's relevant policy. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK I understand you--«(…°°…)» talk 12:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the story?
Hi, saw the post by Darkness Shines on the BLPN, spent the morning trying to rectify the article (overeffusive and overreffed, a bit OR, then DS went overboard tagging everything with cn templates or "fails verifiability" when in fact the sources actually supported the claims). Now, you have deleted the post, can you give me some background info, I havce tried to reach out to User:TopGun to show that I am not intent on edit-warring/destroying the article but I would like to know something about what I have just walked into. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just to add, TG posted a link to an ANI discussion, apparently he's been a bit of an edit-warrior himself, could you clarify simply and in your own words? Just to add, that after engaging on talk pages with him, seems to be acting reasonably. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the BLPN post because it was made in violation of Darkness Shines' interaction ban. Due to a pattern of sub-optimal interaction between the two, they were recently banned from interacting with each other – and part of that restriction is that they're both prohibited from commenting on each other's actions. It was merely a "procedural" action; you're welcome to restart a BLPN thread about the very same article, if you believe there are BLP issues. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hate walking into potential minefields (BLP is very explosive) without forewarning. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the BLPN post because it was made in violation of Darkness Shines' interaction ban. Due to a pattern of sub-optimal interaction between the two, they were recently banned from interacting with each other – and part of that restriction is that they're both prohibited from commenting on each other's actions. It was merely a "procedural" action; you're welcome to restart a BLPN thread about the very same article, if you believe there are BLP issues. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just in case
Just in case if you'd like to follow up on the discussion related to the block you made.. [1] - I made a full clarification to Nyttend also linking the deletion discussion. I had improved the sources of my text and was not restoring it to neo title, and the recreation was expected as per the deletion discussion. Nyttend proposed to move my draft and merge so that the IBAN wasn't violated. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Mereger?
Hasn't the effect of the merger been that neither party can edit the page now? Several other people have been editing the page, so it doesn't seem to me that this gave TopGun an unfair advantage. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- On a totally unrelated matter, your editnotice has an extra space and comma: "Hello, , and welcome". Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, somehow it gave him an advantage as you put your adminship behind his post. Couldn't he just have posted it himself if he came to that article not through DS (although DS created the article)? JCAla (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, thanks, I have just fixed it. It's just that, between the two commas, my editnotice contained a {{REVISIONUSER}}, which apparently no longer works...
That said, in general, two interaction-banned users can edit the same article, provided they do not undo each other's edits. Of course, in this case, considering the shortness of the article's history, the end result is pretty much that: neither of them can edit the article any longer; however, I personally believe that the unintended result of the history merge is that TopGun got the upper hand in the content dispute – which is what got Darkness Shines going –, as the version which Darkness Shines can no longer edit is the one he prefers and that's rather similar to the one which was deleted after the AfD... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- So Darkness Shines prefers the version that's closer to what was deleted at AFD? Both geopolitics and interaction bans are outside my field of interest, so I'm quite confused; I thought my action would prevent fighting at this page and improve a stub at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, TopGun and Darkness Shines have a long history of sub-optimal interaction – and the hostility between Indians and Pakistanis does not help – which is what led to the imposition of a WP:1RR first and, then, an interaction ban. TopGun created the article about Pakophilia and Darkness Shines, arguing that it was full of original research, nominated it for deletion. After the article was deleted, Darkness Shines created a new stub about the topic, which was short but sourced. TopGun had you histmerge his own version to Darkness Shines' and this version contained the same OR that led to the deletion of the original article; the problem, in Darkness Shines' opinion, is that a. he can no longer edit the article he created and b. he cannot remove TopGun's additions, despite the fact they violate WP:V and WP:BLP, in his opinion – because all edits would be a violation of the interaction ban – . Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I had no choice but to ask at ANI about what to do with such a situation when an article I had on my to-do list as a red link since quite some time is created with IBAN in between. Nyttend suggested history merge and it seemed a good option without violating... both our intentions were to stay away from the IBAN. I had disagreements on the content issues, but another user has removed it and I have agreed to his removals. But I think WP:OWN shouldn't be in the way of improvement. I also tried to add as much sources as I could while it was in my userspace (most of which I moved from main articles with attribution so I don't have to be held responsible for everything). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, TopGun and Darkness Shines have a long history of sub-optimal interaction – and the hostility between Indians and Pakistanis does not help – which is what led to the imposition of a WP:1RR first and, then, an interaction ban. TopGun created the article about Pakophilia and Darkness Shines, arguing that it was full of original research, nominated it for deletion. After the article was deleted, Darkness Shines created a new stub about the topic, which was short but sourced. TopGun had you histmerge his own version to Darkness Shines' and this version contained the same OR that led to the deletion of the original article; the problem, in Darkness Shines' opinion, is that a. he can no longer edit the article he created and b. he cannot remove TopGun's additions, despite the fact they violate WP:V and WP:BLP, in his opinion – because all edits would be a violation of the interaction ban – . Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- So Darkness Shines prefers the version that's closer to what was deleted at AFD? Both geopolitics and interaction bans are outside my field of interest, so I'm quite confused; I thought my action would prevent fighting at this page and improve a stub at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations!
On your AUSC appointment, I'll probably have some oversighting work for you in the near future (if you will use the tools for normal oversighting business too). :) The Helpful One 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the congrats!
Unfortunately, I'll not be able to help you with the oversight requests, because I think it would be inappropriate for a member of the audit subcommittee to act as an oversight or checkuser. I believe I should avoid giving the impression of being biased. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, also do you happen to use IRC? The Helpful One 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have occasionaly used it (the account creation channel, mainly), but I had never applied for a cloak. I have just done it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, also do you happen to use IRC? The Helpful One 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, you look good in that cloak Salvio - lol - congrats on yr successful application - a good result for you and for the en wiki project. - thanks - Youreallycan 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Kashruth Council of Canada Page
Thank you for blocking the user perpetrating the defamation. However now it is continuing via an IP address. I feel this is considered sock-puppetry. Is there any way to block this. There is continued ad hominem attacks. These have escalated since the user was blocked. Thank you Applesandhoney (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have just semied the page for a fortnight; should this editor be back after protection expires, I'll be glad to extend it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. I couldn't change the content back until it was blocked as the edit only lasted a minute or so before it was attacked again. Applesandhoney (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Email message
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Trijnstel (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines
Given the circumstances, you might want to consider unblocking or reducing the block on DS. It looks like he was trying to get some attention to the fact that he was out maneuvered, possibly in good faith, by TopGun. I'm not totally up to speed on the history of these two editors so I might have overlooked other things but, based on this alone, DS's actions look relatively innocent. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I'm about to unblock him, but I'll emphasise once again to him that he's supposed to completely ignore TopGun's actions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good move. Though, now that I've studied the past a little, the prognosis, as Seinfeld would say, is negative :) --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Frank Ifield
Regarding Arora, I remember youooo. This is the one that you asked me to remind you about, which had previously been semi-p'd for 6 months. IP geolocates to the same place, and has the same ISP. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sitush. I have just semied the page for a year. Let's hope this user is not that patient. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Question regarding IBAN
If WP:OR is added to an article, and has then been modified by another user, is it a violation to remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Salvio, I assume DS is referring to the article Pro-Pakistan sentiment and the passage about "The like or interest of Pakistan is the opposite of Pakophobia,[1] Pakistanophobia[2] or Anti-Pakistan sentiment, which is the fear and dislike of things concerning Pakistan.[citation needed]". Please see my post(s) at the Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment#Over referencing.
- I don't know what I have walked into and I am not taking sides, just tried to make the article more palatable and wiki-like, but from my experience over the last 48 hours Top Gun is willing to engage and accept Talk Page discussion whereas I find DS's attitude hostile and pointy. I don't see how saying "the like or interest of Pakistan is the opposite of Pakophobia" is OR, it's pure common sense based on what the word(s) mean, in the two dictionary references I left they specifically give examples of Francophilia (love of French things) and Anglophobia (a dislike of English or British things).
- Er, maybe a quiet word in DS's ear, for someone who has just been unblocked their behaviour seems very "warrior-like". Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, it is actually Anti-Pakistan sentiment I am referring to here, specifically the usage of a term not supported by the sources as a pejorative. And yes, I already know I am a tad brusque, I am working on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- On a related matter, how about this for a pointy edit, given the archiving set up by this. Honestly, these two need a full-blown topic ban, not just an IBAN. The collateral damage of RfCs, umpteen different drama boards and niggling post-ban comments, plus pointy stuff as per the example in the diffs here ... It is also having quite a chilling effect, I think, in that it will be discouraging others from getting involved. Despite CaptainScreebo's note above, I am finding TG to be as tendentiously awkward, wikilawyer-ish and POV-y as DS. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was just saying that in the relatively few contacts that I have had with these two editors, TG actually listened and accepted my observations/changes. But obviously, I am not following this editor around to all the articles he's working on so I don't have the full picture. Considering the vehemence and pointy behaviour that I have witnessed so far, I agree with Sitush's comments about a topic ban for both of them, as they appear to be highly antagonistic, and Sitush is right in saying that it will drive people away, I have far better things to do on WP than get involved in DR, ANI reports and so on. I get the feeling that uninvolved editors will get dragged into taking sides, which is obviously to the contrary of a collegial, NPOV atmosphere for working on articles. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know who set up the archiving, it was dead since ever and not working. I fixed it... but now that I know that it could be a violation, I've self reverted it (though it is dead again now and starts from 7th archive page?). Any one can revert my self revert to the fixed version since the previous archiving never worked. Sitush if you don't want to assume good faith, dont do it and don't assume bad faith either, but do give me the due benefit of doubt. You should have informed me first. That is tendentious to get me a block for something that was unintentional. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- And thank you for the vote of confidence Sitush, I love ya baby. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, that would be a violation, yes. If TopGun adds OR to an article and someone else then modifies it, if you remove said original research, you're still changing TopGun's addition. It doesn't matter it was modified by a different editor. I've already repeated this an incredible number of times, but disengage. Wikipedia has millions of articles and thousands of highly active users. If TopGun is really that disruptive, his behaviour will be noticed and dealt with. You seem to be on a crusade against his original research.
I had hoped the interaction ban between the two of you would solve the countless problems caused by your interaction, but, ever since it was imposed, the number of ANI threads about either of you has increased. This really boggles the mind!
Please, don't even look at TopGun's edits. Start really ignoring him. If you cannot keep away from him I fear that the only solution will be a topic ban, since the interaction ban is obviously not working... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I just wanted clarification was all. Am minding my own business henceforth. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- And as a show of how things shall be I hatted my query at ANI. No more drama. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's appreciated! Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
AN/I Discussion
I stumbled across a [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DIREKTOR|current discussion over at AN/I I thought you should be aware of. I noticed you had an DS block on BoDu (talk · contribs) recently and it seems it has stirred up again. You may want to chime in, appears to me he may have violated his agreement to get unblocked but you should probably be the judge of that. --WGFinley (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Taxi summons
Could you please take a look at this pair of contributions. The user is having problems with WP:IDHT all over the shop and has only recently served a short block. The continued accusations of bad faith etc are becoming tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have blocked for three days for WP:BATTLE. I'd also have imposed a topic ban, but James Tod is not under community sanctions, so I cannot do that... I fear this block isn't going to solve much, but let's see... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since Tod's Annals is a history of the Rajput communities, and since RIK's contentions all relate to his perception of how the vernacular histories of those communities are presented/the accuracy thereof (as Boing! said Zebedee has also spotted recently), the sanctions issue is indeed borderline. The similarities in repetitive scattergun presentation of arguments etc by RIK and Intothefire are remarkable, as is the manner in which they disappear for a few days and then renew the repetition. We'll just have to live with it, I guess, but at least they could be civil about things & not bandy around ridiculous cabal accusations etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really familiar with Intothefire, though I think I must have interacted with him in the past, so I cannot pick up any similarities in their editing patterns. But, if there is evidence which make it plausible that both accounts are operated by the same person, then, perhaps, the best solution would be to file a WP:SPI. Otherwise, just adopt the wait and see approach: if, when his block expires, RIK starts attacking you and your admin friends again, then he'll be blocked again and a thread on ANI can be started to get him topic banned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since Tod's Annals is a history of the Rajput communities, and since RIK's contentions all relate to his perception of how the vernacular histories of those communities are presented/the accuracy thereof (as Boing! said Zebedee has also spotted recently), the sanctions issue is indeed borderline. The similarities in repetitive scattergun presentation of arguments etc by RIK and Intothefire are remarkable, as is the manner in which they disappear for a few days and then renew the repetition. We'll just have to live with it, I guess, but at least they could be civil about things & not bandy around ridiculous cabal accusations etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Kiko4564
What do you make of [2]? Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was about to reblock, but was beaten to it by Jpgordon... Sigh, that's what you get for giving second chances. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Done
Block my account, I have had enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- For how long?
And are you aware that if I block your account I'll remove your ability to edit your talk page and to send e-mails, so you will not be able to appeal the block?
Are you really sure you want to be blocked? Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Forever. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't do indefinite blocks on request, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am quite drunk and am being mean to people, best stop me now. Going back to the pub, will do further crap from mt moblie, assuming of course I can figure it out Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't do indefinite blocks on request, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Forever. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you check this?
Hi Salvio, I am getting tired of reverting this IP's vandalism. He/she continously removes verified content [3][4][5][6], has been reverted by several users (including me) for vandalism [7]. Curiously, he/she now refers to the Afshar Operation as "genocide" which no reliable source does. But it comes after the Bangladesh genocide has been discussed. The IP geolocates to Norway and I suspect there might be connections to User:Mustihussain (now called Altetendekrabbe) see also. I do not have any evidence, however, shall I report said IP or will you act on this? JCAla (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Those edits are most definitely disruptive; however, the IP hasn't edited in 10 hours, now. So I am a bit hesitant to block, because the issue seems a bit stale. I agree that the IP seems rather stable, but I don't feel comfortable all the same. If you think the IP is a sock, probably WP:SPI would be the best venue; or just wait: if he's back with that nonsense, he'll be blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Questions
[8][9] Is it normal practice to put two NPOV tags on an article which just passed GA? Based on this users past comments in which he has sought a topic ban on myself I am of the opinion he is trying to goad me into rash behavior. It would appear to me there are a little campaign going on here and the e-mails are no doubt a flying. I should like to know if removing either one or both of these ridiculous tags will be a violation of my 1RR restriction? I had reverted this user [10] yesterday as after JCAla and he had finished editing the sources were grossly misrepresented (I have no idea nor interest in who messed it up I just want accuracy in the article). Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- DS, instead of making lame, bad faith accusations, you would be well advised to explain and discuss your content removal on the article's talk page. There's no need to create drama. Mar4d (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am making an inquiry regarding my restriction, I made no accusations only offered an opinion. As for your advise [11][12] perhaps it is you who should be discussing why you put two tags on an article which just got GA. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't usually involve myself with GA, so my knowledge is limited, but I think that since the article has passed a GA review, I believe that two drive-by NPOV tags are inappropriate. Checking your previous reversion, it had nothing to do with this issue, so feel free to revert again. It'll not be a violation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Sal. In case you think this was a "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" between myself and JCAla he is not the only person to have commented on howwell this article has been presented [13] see there please. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Kashmiri Pandit guy may need attention again
Hello Salvio. I'm recommending a six-month block of two IPs, and here's the rationale.
- 65.88.88.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (NY Public Library)
- 24.146.243.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Brooklyn NY)
The first IP was blocked three months back in November for nationalist edit warring on articles related to Kashmir, especially Kashmiri Pandit. The block expired on 1 February. You made a new block of this IP in February, but then lifted it with the comment that page protection was better. Can you check again, and especially look at his edits since March 1? He is branching out to more articles than just Kashmiri Pandit. He removed sourced information and article tags at Kashmiri language. He has added copyright violations at Lawrence School (Sanawar). Looks to me like that a six-month block is the right thing to do. User:Sitush asked me to look into this since I issued a previous block.
The following could be the same guy, or a colleague:
- 208.125.14.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (geolocates to Queens, NY)
Not active enough to be worth blocking. But here you receive a personal compliment from the 208.* IP editor. "'Note Sitush and Salvio giuliano both surely belong to the same ethnicity and are thus busy changing the history of Kashmiri Pandits in order to push their foreign agenda in the future." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have rechecked this user's edits and I agree with you, a six-month block was definitely warranted. I hoped that page protection would do the trick, but it only encouraged him to jump to another article... Thanks for your kind note!
I also agree that my 208.125 fan does not edit enough to be blocked for the moment, but I'm about to add him to my followed users. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, both. I was looking into setting up an SPI, as EdJohnston had suggested to me, but those things are so difficult when the users are IPs. Although I agree with your decision, is it one that needs a review somewhere because of the library implications? I would hope that the recent sanctions + the fact that people can still contribute from the library IP if they register an account is sufficient? - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, SPIs for IPs are difficult, because, among other things, checkusers will not link IPs to named accounts and the entire investigation will only be based on behavioural evidence (in this case the quacks were deafening, but it doesn't always happen)... As all blocks, this will be reviewed if someone asks for an unblock. More probably, however, innocent users who cannot edit will ask for an account by sending an e-mail to the unblock list... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Should I ever get to New York, which is unlikely because I cannot fly due to ear problems, then I would make a trip to that library, stand in the middle of the thing and shout "I'M SITUSH !". I would have to arrange protection from NY's finest first, of course. The number of disruptive contributors using that place, across multiple IPs, to edit Indian subcontinent articles is unbelievable.
- Your point about the review makes perfect sense, but it then raises the question of why do admins sometimes go to ANI etc and ask for a review of their own block. My lack of appreciation of subtleties, I guess, is a demonstration of why I'll not be putting my name forward at RfA any time in the next decade! - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The day you visit that library, I want to be there! But I think I'll not to disclose my identity... Somehow, I fear I'd not be really appreciated.
And admins start ANI threads in two cases: when they're not really sure of the action they've taken and need a sanity check and when the person they've blocked is an established user and, so, they know that drama is headed their way. When you know that you'll be dragged to ANI, it's better to do the reporting yourself: this way, you can at least have a little control over how the case will be presented. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure that I could sell tickets for the event! Now, the miscreant is back, using another IP. Do we semi-p the article or are we going to end up rangeblocking the NYPL (scary!) ? - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- IP blocked for six months and article semied for a month. God, I love playing whack-a-mole, sigh... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure that I could sell tickets for the event! Now, the miscreant is back, using another IP. Do we semi-p the article or are we going to end up rangeblocking the NYPL (scary!) ? - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The day you visit that library, I want to be there! But I think I'll not to disclose my identity... Somehow, I fear I'd not be really appreciated.
- Yes, SPIs for IPs are difficult, because, among other things, checkusers will not link IPs to named accounts and the entire investigation will only be based on behavioural evidence (in this case the quacks were deafening, but it doesn't always happen)... As all blocks, this will be reviewed if someone asks for an unblock. More probably, however, innocent users who cannot edit will ask for an account by sending an e-mail to the unblock list... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, both. I was looking into setting up an SPI, as EdJohnston had suggested to me, but those things are so difficult when the users are IPs. Although I agree with your decision, is it one that needs a review somewhere because of the library implications? I would hope that the recent sanctions + the fact that people can still contribute from the library IP if they register an account is sufficient? - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
3RR U5ard and probable multiple accounts
Hi Salvio, thanks for this. It looks like this user has a few other usernames for this purpose. See [14], [15], [16] by one time users I4gbb (talk · contribs) and I86fk (talk · contribs). Check the obvious pattern in their usernames and compare with U5ard (talk · contribs). Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Someone is taking care of it already at [17]. Ciao - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You guys are fast. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You placed a semi protect on this page not too long ago and the IP that keeps adding the ethnic hyphenated Americanism of Greek- American as opposed to just proper nationality to the lead, is back again adding it and edit wars will break out again because this person has no interest in any kind of dialouge on the talk page,this has been goin on for a while it seems at this page perhaps a long term semi protect is due here,i see an old insert on the talk page about this from like 4 years ago--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The IP has only made one edit since protection expired; before re-protecting, I'd like to see if he comes back again. I'd feel uncomfortable doing so just yet... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
1RR restriction
I want it lifted forthwith. I am sick of this [18][19][20][21] He will not discuss the issues he says the article has, he does not try to get consensus, he is using shit sources and misrepresenting others and there is nothing I can so, which he knows full well. This is a deliberate provocation designed to work towards his wanting a topic ban on myself. Either remove my 1RR restriction or put that article under a 1RR restriction as I will not have all the work I put into it ruined by a POV pusher whose purpose currently appears to be to piss me off. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- First thank you for what you have said the Mar4d, second [22] is a violation of the IBAN. I have already reverted this content which had already been pointed out on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let me clarify [23] All that cotent in that revert was written by me. The entire article was written by me, this itself was probably a violation of the IBAN [24] as it comments directly on content I had written, I did not report it as I promised I would stop with the drama. The second violation however is one to far. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think I can revert JCAla's deletions. After Mar4d's edits the content was as of his edits. I've not violated (I don't know which ever the first alleged violation was.. other than one that I self reverted right after the edit - if you would count that, then count these too [25] [26]). I was already engaged on the talk page before the revert anyway. The IBAN does not forbid me from make any comments on the content of an article which he (I guess I can use this in an IBAN report itself) has been doing too and was considered ok, it's a restriction on commenting on his edits. When I reverted the content, that was the new one as written by Mar4d and reverted by JCAla. I revert him as I did not agree with it and he never explained his revert either. The last such report at ANI clearly specified a confirmed WP:BOOMERANG on another false one. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Of course context is everything. Self reverted instantly in case it has violated the IBANSelf reverted instantly and then Explained I was on my mobile and had hit rollback by mistake Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines' edits are not violations of your IBAN, in my opinion, because they were self-reverted immediately and because one was an error (it's easy to hit rollback by mistake – I have done it myself far too often, sigh –). Regarding TopGun's edit, instead, yes, it is a violation. At least, in spirit, of the interaction ban. Assuming good faith, I want to give you a little time to self-revert. If you fail to do so, I'll have no other choice but issue a block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I gave those diffs in reverts to my own self reverts. I know mistaken rollbacks happens sometimes (though I'm not sure about the other one where first reference was given and then reverted... in short message delivered). I agree to self revert (reverted), but I want to know how this is a violation? The content as edited by Mar4d was a different content... after DS's revert it was restored again. Now weren't the edits by JCAla on that content? Also can you clarify to JCAla not to bring up IBAN when ever I talk about content as placed currently in an article rather than edits made on any article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- My revert was solely based on the fact that this article by consensus was granted GA status but the content dispute (in which I am not involved) turned it into a rag rug. So, I see the need for both parties to discuss the issue first and then add the disputed content without hundreds of tags necessary. For TG's last sentence, I never once brought up his IBAN except for one single time when I brought it up to him personally because he was asking other people to remove a wikilink added by DS. JCAla (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well your revert didn't explain the removal itself... you should have said that on talk page. And this is not a single line [27]. The whole section went into the spiral. I can not edit the content but I can talk about it, disagree with the current state and give my opinion on it. I made no reference to the edits. I did how ever say that the link was incorrect (which it was). This is not a violation... that's why I asked him to clarify this to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Darkness Shines and another editor were edit warring; a third editor reverted to Darkness Shines's version and you reverted him. Now, you were not technically reverting Darkness Shines's edits, but you were indirectly editing (in this case, removing) them. I consider it a violation of the spirit of the restriction, at the very least, because you chose to get involved in a content dispute/edit war which revolved around Darkness Shines's edits. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand the indirect issue, but my involvement was because I was already editing the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that and, in fact, I was not alleging you were hounding Darkness Shines; however, your interaction ban prevents you from modifying each other's edits, even if you were already editing the same article before its imposition. Of course, this provision is to be interpreted cum grano salis: if you modify in good faith something which was added six months ago by Darkness Shines (or viceversa), I don't think you'll be blocked, but you both should pay particular attention when editing the same article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- As you (TG) brought it up, then let's just ask Salvio for information purpose only as I am now interested to know. DS added this wikilink and modified the other. TG, referring to said edit, said: "These links have yet to be fixed, some body please fix the linking." Is that ok according to IBAN? It has been a while and has been resolved by now, so just for information purpose. JCAla (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I did not refer to an edit... provide a diff if I did? I referred to the content and the linking as it currently occurred in the article (carefully choosing not to refer to any edits - and I explained it then too). I've been working on it since months. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you referred to the article in its entirety, then it's not a violation, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I did not refer to an edit... provide a diff if I did? I referred to the content and the linking as it currently occurred in the article (carefully choosing not to refer to any edits - and I explained it then too). I've been working on it since months. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand the indirect issue, but my involvement was because I was already editing the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- My revert was solely based on the fact that this article by consensus was granted GA status but the content dispute (in which I am not involved) turned it into a rag rug. So, I see the need for both parties to discuss the issue first and then add the disputed content without hundreds of tags necessary. For TG's last sentence, I never once brought up his IBAN except for one single time when I brought it up to him personally because he was asking other people to remove a wikilink added by DS. JCAla (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I gave those diffs in reverts to my own self reverts. I know mistaken rollbacks happens sometimes (though I'm not sure about the other one where first reference was given and then reverted... in short message delivered). I agree to self revert (reverted), but I want to know how this is a violation? The content as edited by Mar4d was a different content... after DS's revert it was restored again. Now weren't the edits by JCAla on that content? Also can you clarify to JCAla not to bring up IBAN when ever I talk about content as placed currently in an article rather than edits made on any article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, he did not refer to the article in its entirety.
- Darkness Shines adds wikilink linking "atrocities" to his article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War on March 02, 11:44.
- You write "the current link from "atrocities" should be removed" on March 03, 15:19.
- And you add "These links have yet to be fixed, some body please fix the linking." on March 03, 18:01.
- You said you were right in doing so as it was on content, so I want to know if that is indeed right? :) JCAla (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, he did not refer to the article in its entirety.
Dear Salvio, I was the reviewer of that article and several neutral long-time editors agreed with me to give it the GA status. Now Mar4d and Darkness Shines are engaged in a content dispute. I reverted to the version when the article was granted GA status and told everyone involved to first reach a consensus version on the talk page before making the article very very unpleasant to read. Just have a look how the version TopGun restored now (by reverting my rv) looks like. It is simply disruptive to restore such a version when an article was granted GA status. JCAla (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now you'll get me a block on your content dispute, really? Take it to article talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio, can you take a look at this as well while we are at it? [28]. Just like the Pro-Pakistan sentiment article.. this was also preemptively created right after I was about to create and work on it with Mar4d. This was an acknowledgement [29]. Isn't this clear (and) intentional gaming? How do I go about editing this...? I'll surely add content as planned though. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Did you express the intention of creating such an article before Darkness Shines created it? I mean, was that a case of active gaming or a mere unfortunate coincidence, meaning that DS got to it first? Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the intent was expressed first.. Mar4d invited me to create and work on one with him... (see the first link and check out the short discussion it cites from my talk page). Clearly it was read from my talk page and then created and acknowledged for that later. By the time I replied it was created already... but obviously me and Mar4d were going to work on it. Not a co-incidence in short given the discussion on my talk page and the later acknowledgement. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I created that article for two reasons, the first being to piss off MAR4d as he was tagging and edit warring on an article I had created from scratch and worked hard on to bring to GA status. I will not bother to mention the other. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)