User talk:Darkness Shines: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:09, 14 June 2014

Done here

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for my explanation at the bottom of this section to enforce the discretionary sanctions authorised in the India-Pakistan case, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Srich32977

Read, and stay off this talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

DS, I hope you don't mind the little tweak. Well, maybe you do, but I'm only trying to help. I missed the tail end of the arbitration case and I'm sorry that this is how it ended. I hope you're not totally done here; you have performed some valuable service to Her Majesty, despite the other stuff. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: No worries, the break was needed. I was definitely out of patience

, will have to appeal the TBAN when I return, else the socks will have a field day. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DS. Again, take care of yourself. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Drmies's comments, DS. I, too, did not follow the arbitration case, but I can easily say I'll miss you while you're gone. Have fun in your real life.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some edits you want to suggest in the area covered by your topic ban feel free to email me (as long as they're not the kind that'd get me into trouble, I got enough of that). If they seem legit and constructive I'd be happy to make the changes. Sorry about the topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don`t be daft Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although, a revert here would be appreciated, have it up for GA, would like it to get there. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek or anyone else, what topic ban? I see a discussion of a possible topic ban at AE, but I don't see that one was imposed. There's also nothing listed at WP:Editing restrictions. Am I missing something? As for making edits on behalf of DS, I'd tread carefully in that regard, as you might find yourself accused of editing by proxy on behalf of a blocked user.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN logged at here Feel free to support my appeal

Darkness Shines (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DS.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Shooting you would have been kinder. --regentspark (comment) 23:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me (us) when you file that appeal. I like to think that an appeal (with maybe a voluntary restriction or two? maybe 1R or something like that?) could be successful. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Darkness Shines, past few months I was very irregular in wikipedia. That is why I didn't follow the whole story. Few days ago I saw in my watch list that your account was banned! It is very bad feeling for me indeed. I wish after removal of ban period you will be available again in wikipedia. Actually wikipedia needs experienced people like you. Take this period as leave.--FreemesM ^(talk) 09:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I feel sorry that you had been blocked. Wikipedia will miss an editor who used to take care of vandals and protect its article like a warrior guarding his fort. I hope you remember this conversation of ours. Relax and chill down with this beer. Vatsan34 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

I could always look forward to you before the ban. Don't lose your heart. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Callanecc

@Callanecc: As the blocking admin and the one who imposed the TBAN on myself I request a modification of the TBAN as it currently stands. I request permission to point out some very obvious sockpuppets editing articles which cover the area of the TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this wouldn't be covered by WP:BANEX you shouldn't be making any comments regarding it. However given it would be in the best interest of the project I'm happy for you to send me an email with the evidence and I'll go from there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the one who imposed the sanction also had the ability to lift or modify it. Will mail you in a moment. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: YGM Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, sock taken care of. I'm considering granting an exception so that you can edit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mujhideen101 only. However my concern is that the behaviour for which you were sanctioned will continue on that page and that you won't step away from the topic area. I'm still on the fence, what I will consider though is if after a month of editing after your block there are no issues I'll discuss lifting the TBAN with you (such as what to replace it with). But that's a discussion best had later on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I will think over on how best to prevent my flying off the handle. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: YGM Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Mailed you another couple of socks, different master this time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Don't you dare loose cool again...Keep calm and get work done....

ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I tend to lose my temper after having a few to many beers

Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your efforts to stop Massoudafg101‎. I'm glad to have warring partisan editors off the wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Фаиз Махмудов

@Salvio giuliano: This appears to be rather obvious sock of Фаиз Махмудов. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed with a couple of friends. Cheers.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Any time, YGM BTW over another sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: In case Sal does not get my mail soonish, can you mail me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know I had asked some questions to Callanecc, one of the question indirectly involved you. But he is not online at all.. I guess I will have to email you, I am leaving comp, but I will be back in few hours and inform you. OccultZone (Talk) 14:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am off on a date in a bit, will check my mailbox when I get home, which with any luck will be some time tomorrow

Darkness Shines (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get a load of this

You see this? I made this. Bask in its glory. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That probably falls under my TBAN, so cannot comment but will bask in it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, you can't even respond to a request for feedback about someone's sandbox? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he can respond. I don't think this falls under the India-Pakistan topic area. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No response is a better bet. Not because of the tban, but because blocked editors are not supposed to comment on content. --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't want to get DS in trouble. I'll be waiting for you in mid July dude. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Which is kinda funny One rule for some Darkness Shines (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me you thought we lived in a fair world :) But, more seriously, you don't want to get into more trouble. --regentspark (comment) 01:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calypsomusic:, @MezzoMezzo: Here's your final answer, you may want to check this section. Confirmed by Callanecc. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Callanecc

@Callanecc: Thinking of an unblock request, other than sucking up, what would you accept? I would go with a 1RR restriction, other than obvious socks, as you know I deal with a lot ), also obvious vandal crap and I will do my utmost to not cuss people out, however, I am short tempered, and that will eventually happen. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1rr, often confused with 0rr is not a good idea, and for your subjects it is clearly not. If other editor is aware about your situation they will not only revert your edit on disputed articles but also revert you on those articles where they had nothing to do. No doubt how wrong they are, but I can assume that 40%-70% of the times such edits are overlooked by the community. Not really a matter if their edit was a vandalism or bad faith, you cannot revert until you gain consensus, other admin may count it as violation of 1rr even if you have reverted or touched same portion of the article twice under last 24 hours(or even higher). Take your time, you can find better idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not appealing the TBAN mate, just the length of the block, I have an article currently up for GA, which is now stalled. I am hoping the block will be reduced to time served so I can get that finished. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given I was the admin who both suggested and implemented the block I'm comfortable with assessing this decision without checking with the other admins first (though I'll ping Sandstein for information).

I'm not really concerned with 1RR as the block wasn't primarily for edit warring. However I would require the following:

You explain all uses of Wikipedia:Rollback or Twinkle rollback functions notwithstanding the normal rules (which will apply to Twinkle rollbacks as well). However I would caution you against unexplained rollbacks in cases where the reason is not immediately obvious.
You accept that any personal attacks or gross incivility (solely in the opinion of the enforcing administrator) will be met with a block at least until the expiry date set for this block quite possibly longer.
These unblock requirements are not discretionary sanctions themselves (though the enforcement of them may be) so apply on all pages not just pages covered by WP:ARBIPA.

These unblock requirements (just the dot points) should be left on your talk page until 10:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC) and will be logged here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 :1rr, often confused with 0rr is not a good idea, and for your subjects it is clearly not. If other editor is aware about your situation they will not only revert your edit on disputed articles but also revert you on those articles where they had nothing to do. No doubt how wrong they are, but I can assume that 40%-70% of the times such edits are overlooked by the community. Not really a matter if their edit was a vandalism or bad faith, you cannot revert until you gain consensus, other admin may count it as violation of 1rr even if you have reverted or touched same portion of the article twice under last 24 hours(or even higher). Take your time, you can find better idea. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small></span> 02:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::I am not appealing the TBAN mate, just the length of the block, I have an article currently up for GA, which is now stalled. I am hoping the block will be reduced to time served so I can get that finished. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
+:::Given I was the admin who both suggested and implemented the block I'm comfortable with assessing this decision without checking with the other admins first (though I'll ping {{u|Sandstein}} for information).
+:::I'm not really concerned with 1RR as the block wasn't primarily for edit warring. However I would require the following:
+:::*You explain all uses of [[Wikipedia:Rollback]] or Twinkle rollback functions notwithstanding the [[WP:Rollback#When to use rollback|normal rules]] (which will apply to Twinkle rollbacks as well). However I would caution you against unexplained rollbacks in cases where the reason is not immediately obvious.
+:::*You accept that any personal attacks or gross incivility (solely in the opinion of the enforcing administrator) will be met with a block at least until the expiry date set for this block quite possibly longer.
+:::*These unblock requirements are not discretionary sanctions themselves (though the enforcement of them may be) so apply on all pages not just pages covered by [[WP:ARBIPA]].
+:::These unblock requirements (just the dot points) should be left on your talk page until 10:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC) and will be logged [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings|here]]. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)