User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 →

Indic Script yet again

Ashoka Chakra.svg
Namaste, RegentsPark. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 15:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contribution you deserve this barnstar! Tito Dutta (contact) 16:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks (though not really deserved!). --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For the article you sent me, thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Anytime DS. Happy to be of help. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

MOS discussion

Just in case you should not notice it. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. Another busy day at work (to be honest, the busyness involves a three martini lunch so I can't complain!) but should have some time later this evening! --regentspark (comment) 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Shaken, not stirred. Which is a reference both to your beverage and the recent shenanigans ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Narendra Modi becoming garbage

I guess as you are involved in the article you would not be able to use your admin powers on the article. (Thats my knowledge abt admins, could be wrong.) But for the betterment i have a proposal which i would like you to get it implemented by some or the other way. (a) Keep the article locked for indef. I dont know why it was removed the last time after 24hrs. (b) After being locked, start/continue discussion point wise; meaning propose a statementA, get majority approval and then ask another admin to edit the article. Propose B and so on... Take votes separately and strictly keep chatting to minimum. (c) Most important request would be to somehow bring some order to that talk page. But i dont see how you can do it. EVERY DAMN EDITOR IS FOLLOWING WP:BOLD AND NO OTHER POLICY. I am not gonna name the editors who are being nuisance as you know who they are. Keeping aside the content issues, this page is really getting messy because of the behavioural issues. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've backed off because of the mess. I have my own thoughts regarding the cause of it and I do foresee some blocks/topic bans etc coming before much longer. There is nothing that RP can do in an admin capacity but there should be some admins watching from the sidelines by now. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree that the whole thing is a mess. But DD, your repeated postings on ANI are not helping. Anyway, I'm too involved to do anything other than comment on content, and even that I'm trying to do only minimally because it is rather frustrating (I have a brick wall at home that serves the same purpose!). --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have not posted anything on Sitush's ANI case since 20th. And today's ANI case was in no way intended to be for this particular article. But somehow people keep dragging the contents all over the Wikipedia. I thought the thing would slow down and hence i kept myself away from the article until today. I noticed that Sitush also did. But the case just gotten worse even after we both stopped. (Lets assume here that i was the only one disrupting.) I am again going to be away from the article and wont be back untill atleast the talk page is in a better status. But unless and untill some strict action is taken, there is no way that the condition will improve any soon. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not going to get better soon. Nothing I can do anyway. I could lend you the brick wall though :) --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Since I have your attention, what's your take on the article? POV tilt in favor of Modi? Against Modi? Just right? --regentspark (comment) 16:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ofcourse you can do it. Find an admin or two who can strict implement these first two points. We need a military regement on that page.
I just said i am going away from that page and you are asking me about it an dragging me again? Face-smile.svg Thats funny!!! I will answer to that in an email. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
POV tilt in favour. Actually, not so much a tilt as an acute angle. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
DD replied by email. There is no hope :) --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No surprise, really. We may as well just let Modi write the damn thing, I'm truly astonished that other experienced contributors seem reluctant to get involved but presume the very common, "Oh, it's about India so no point going there ...". It doesn't seem to matter at which forum the article is mentioned, nor whether the point being raised favours Modi or otherwise. There is more or less complete apathy, and the recriminations will be considerable when they realise that Modi is touted for prime ministerial office and is quite likely to get it. I guess it is another symptom of the US/UK-centricity on en-WP as a whole. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There is only some thing that you can do about an article. For example there is context tag on this article Chaukul which is of no use. And if you wish to do more, you need to give it some time, especially when there are many big mouths involved. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


You got mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seen and replied. (With a compliment!) --regentspark (comment) 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Afzal Guru

Ashoka Chakra.svg
Namaste, RegentsPark. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

In case you also feel similar to what I have said there, feel free to revert those edits directly! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A Darkness Shines Question

Look what appeared on my watchlist today: Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. User:Darkness Shines is up to his old tricks and is building his own private list again like he is an admin. This is the same list he put me on earlier this year. Can he do this and get away with it? Who does he think he is? Please look into this and remove any names that are not legitimately on this list. Crtew (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose the removal of any warning that says "(Non admin warning)". It's invalid. Crtew (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how that list is supposed to be used but, yes, probably only admin-issued warnings should be there. FWIW, I was excluded pretty much by request, so if things are to be fair then my name should be added even though I really, really do not need the templated warning - I've already acknowledged my understanding of it at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! What is Darkness Shines doing? --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
He is placing a template warning editors that there are discretionary sanctions on India/Pakistan articles and adding their names to a list here.
(ec)Frankly, this templated warning thing is one that ARBCOM should explicitly ban but it supports it instead. In theory, there is nothing wrong with warning an editor who edits in an area under sanctions since it is purely for informational purposes but, in practice it is used to intimidate and is a big turn-off for content-only editors like Crtew. I'm not sure what to do about this except, perhaps, just automatically pop the template onto the talk page of every editor who edits India/Pakistan pages. I'll ping Salvio on this. (Though, I must say that DS's actions are the first attempt I've seen to break this logjam.) --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I'm not questioning the good faith of DS here. And we do not always agree. The outcome, however, might be unintentionally skewed. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it is an ArbCom topic, if anything. No more heat at WT:INB, please. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's more of an ArbCom clarification thing, not really for us to discuss. Salvio is the right person to deal with this. --regentspark (comment) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Other editors like Sitush, RP, Drmies, Faizan, Soham321, MohitSingh, Aurorion, Dwaipayanc and Maunus along with his dozens of IPs, even if are considered to have knowledge of these sanction, should also be included in that list, if at all one wants to be fair. I see that only so-called-anti-muslim-hindu-nationalist-SPAs are picked and enlisted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Who decides who is on the list and who isn't? And why didn't you suggest your own name? Crtew (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It's placed below my comment. But is this question really for me, Crtew? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The template makes it clear this is a non admin warning, I modified it. Maunus and Sitush already know about it Drmies does as well, I only notified those who where mentioned at ANI. Arbcom allows non admins to place those warnings, so nothing to do here. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
What are you going to do Darkness, list every single user who edits on India or Pakistan? No, so the list is selective, and it's your personal list of warnings, and yet you have no authority to make these judgments. If the warnings are benign as you're suggesting, then how about if I just go on the board and delete every single warning that you posted there. We both know, you would have a tantrum. And I noticed your name wasn't at the top of the list. You could make it a lot easier on everybody by just refraining from assuming powers that you don't hold. Crtew (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I hardly need to be notified about something I already know about. The list is not selective, only those involved in the ANI thread whose names were mentioned were added, posting a notification is not claiming any "power" arbcom has given permission for editors to place these notifications, you can place them, any editor can. Feel free to add me to it if you wish, I am not worried in the least. I placed those notifications per Sal's suggestion at ANI, I have broken no policies nor guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You want it both ways. Yes, I agree it is different from the last time when you were passing yourself off as an admin, but past abuses like that are all the more reason for someone like you to refrain from using banners like this.Crtew (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MrT just deleted all the edits we're talking about, and it is an edit I fully support! Crtew (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being deliberately obtuse, I never passed myself off as an admin, I used the template an admin told me to use, you already know this. And there are no past "abuses", perhaps it is high time you stopped and moved on. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ArbCom are currently trying to review this process, so what I say here might change soon (and is entirely my opinion as an editor), but, in general, warnings are pretty much pro forma. They are not a sanction, cannot be appealed and do not necessarily presuppose actionable disruption: they are merely a way to insure that an editor is aware that, in a given topic area, ArbCom has authorised the imposition of discretionary sanctions, to prevent unpleasant surprises. In this, they are a way to protect editors, not intimidate them (though it's true that they are worded in a way which makes intimidation a likely effect and that should change). For that reason, warnings can be given by anyone (including involved editors) and when an editor is already aware of them (for instance, because he participated in the original ArbCom case which authorised them or has reported other users to AE to have them sanctioned) they are unnecessary. And for that same reason, removing names from the list is pointless: those editors have been notified and, from now onwards, misbehaviour in this topic area can lead to sanctions all the same. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree with your analysis. I would only point to your own tortured wording (not to mean poorly worded!), but where the banner is both said to be a form of intimidation and also pro forma, a necessary warning and unnecessary/pointless. Why so many contradictions? Not to mention that you didn't even broach the topic of whose names are not on the list, which must be a large number of editors. It seems that those who advocate the listing of people are not on the list at all. Why didn't an admin ever put Darkness Shine's or Dharmadhyaksha's names on the list? (not that I would advocate the listing anybody other than serious violators of policy/rules). The listing looks pretty serious to me and to others. Anyone from outside of Wikipedia would not be able to distinguish this from a serious violation. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it should be a duck. Crtew (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
@Crtew, I was on the list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Jumping in here (saw this pop up on numerous talk pages I watch)...I really don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I lack sensitivity, so if this does truly bother people, then perhaps something should be altered...but I don't see the harm in notifying or reminding someone that a certain set of articles are under extra strict rules for user conduct. I mean, I couldn't tell you without looking every single topic that's under sanctions, and so I would obviously rather know that I've wandered into a troubled area. And I know that other non-admins here issue the notification. Maybe this has more to do with how people perceive DS than the actions itself? I guess I'm trying to understand what specifically was wrong with the action--is it that people perceive DS to have chosen his "targets" with the intent of winning a content war? Or that they think DS is trying to drive away new editors in general? Or that this is part of some larger pattern of behavior by DS? Note that I'm not actually accusing DS of any of these things; I'm just spitballing to try to understand why people are upset...and try to determine if this is a case of shooting the messenger. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, it is because nobody likes me Face-smile.svg Crtew, Sal already said why I am not on the list "because he participated in the original ArbCom case which authorised them or has reported other users to AE to have them sanctioned" Which I had already said to you, but feel free to add my name to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
More contradictions. His name doesn't have to be on the list for everyone to know that he already knows about it. Crtew (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Q. that we all have different sensitivities, but "List of editors placed on notice" sounds punitive to people inside the community and to those who are outside looking inward.

@Qwyrxian: I assume that actions based on these sanctions will be taken on any editor only after they are made aware of it at least once. For eg, i trust that action will be taken on RegentsPark even if he hasn't received any templated message because we know for sure that he is aware of this. So, i my personal objection is that why only our names were placed on the list? If the list has to have any real meaning, all editors who are aware of sanctions, and not just the ones who were notified, should be enlist. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The list produces more drama than any benefits that it supposed to bring. Sorry, it's "pointless" so it has no benefits. Just drama. Crtew (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It isn't pointless: sanctions cannot be applied unless the person was previously made aware of them and keeping track of that notification can be troublesome because talk pages get deleted and/or archived. I've just added myself to the list. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The list is useful to determine when a person was notified, without having to waste time hunting for the correct diff. Apart from that, it's entirely useless, I agree (which is why I did not add a specific list here). That said, this is a tempest in a teapot. Various editors have been notified that if they misbehave in a given topic they may be sanctioned; they haven't been sanctioned yet and they may never be sanctioned at all. That should have been the end of it for the moment; I don't understand why there is so much general pugnacity about this... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1. If it's so innocent, then delete the word "placed" and "on notice" and create an acknowledgement list with wording that is truly more descriptive of its informative purpose! Crtew (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 2. Then rethink the banner language, too. And don't give editors the right to use it like it's some form of punishment that they can dole out. Crtew (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Crtew. "Placed on notice" does sound punitive. Perhaps "List of editors who are aware of these sanctions". Then we can add everyone to this list with no issues. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "List of editors aware of the sanctions" along with a note that any editor can notify any other editor and add them to this list, or editors can add themselves if they're aware of the sanctions. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've added myself to the list following the excellent example set by Sitush. In my opinion, there is only one editor who needs reminding of the sanctions. I'm involved so I won't do that but I think it is unfortunate that the admin corps is ignoring this mess and focusing on well meaning, if cranky, editors like Maunus instead. --regentspark (comment) 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you mean me as the one editor I just added myself to try and stop all this stupid dramamongering, if someone else let me know, I can't get any deeper into the poop. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean you DarknessS. I'd tell you if I thought you were doing something wrong. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what you all three are doing by placing yourselves on the list is meant well and admirable! The skeptic in me, however, can't resist observing that all placed "not because I've done anything to warrant notification" next to their names ;-) Is that necessary? (I ask rhetorically) Crtew (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right and I've modified mine. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

Hi RegentsPark! It just occurred to me that you might not know yet that the Jerusalem RfC has now started. It's been open for almost a week, and has already generated a sizeable amount of text. If you want to follow the proceedings, it's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Thank you for agreeing to close it. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been following along, silently :) --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


What's the best course of action for dealing with this? This user is forcing an absolutely meaningless change in without even bothering to justify it, and with an edit summary which paraphrases to "don't revert me and I won't revert you". Thanks, CMD (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Left a note on their talk page. Looks like a good faith edit to me but probably better discussed. --regentspark (comment) 23:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not allowed on their talkpage, or I would have discussed there. CMD (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, since they apparently are reverting because they're getting the notification, rather than because of the edit itself, I've not linked their username. I assume that's how the new interface works. CMD (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calcutta time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Rat (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) 13:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you DPL bot. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You just replied to, and thanked a bot, yet people say I am batshit crazy Face-smile.svg Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Be nice to bots. They're going to rule the world! --regentspark (comment) 18:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
We already do human. Beep. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You're a bot? Nothing to worry about then. We humans are safe. :) --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
perfectly safe. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

A kitten for you!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Thank you for unblocking me.

Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is twinkle wikilove working like this? I thought the gift would be a little more glossy but instead what I am left with is just an image and some scribble. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll take the image and the scribble Mrt, thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you watching Mahatma Gandhi? When did Mohandas Karamchand GandhiMahatma Gandhi happen? Where was I. Shit. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Here. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As you took part in the KW topic ban. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 15:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

See this large-scale undiscussed removal of content. I don't have the necessary patience nor do I know the proper way to deal with this kind of edits without unilateral reversion. To me, it looks like vandalism but what do I know, as they say, I am just a surly rustic hillbilly. If I revert it, it will be framed as an edit war and then I will be blocked. Kindly take necessary steps. Warn him or block him do whatever an admin is supposed to do in these situations. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It goes on[1]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


We just discussed this and I objected to unblock and you just went ahead and did it. Please reblock and seek a consensus at ANI. This is admin abuse and I am absolutely livid. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as admin abuse. He voluntarily agreed to a restriction and blocks are not really meant to be punitive. And it's not really necessary to seek consensus for an unblock on ANI. There is, of course (!), already a thread about this on ANI so you're welcome to chime in there. (ANI thread --regentspark (comment) 20:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not admin abuse, but saying "okay Spartaz, it's your call" and to then go ahead and unblock anyway is not very classy, don't you agree?--Atlan (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps :) --regentspark (comment) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see this is a big joke for you but Atlan's point is germane. You are too close to Mr T and DS to be able to judge whether a block is appropriate and your unblock was against the blocking policy which states inter alia ... "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended."
You knew I was opposed to an unblock and already said at ANI that my block was within policy. I had already invited you to take it to ANI if you disagreed. You chose instead to unblock on a ridiculous pretext without further engagement with me. This is extremely poor judgement and frankly arrogant in your disregard for consensus and alternative viewpoints. You appear to have a history of this and it stinks for you to act in the way with regard to editors you regularly engage with as an editor. The discussion at ANI is clearly a clusterfuck and already worthless but I am not happy with your response and I don't see any evidence that this won't happen again. I am considering an Admin RFCU against you - something I have never ever done in my wikipedia career but which I feel is going to be inevitable if there is not some indication that you have got the message about this issue and are willing to take the views of those who feel the unblock was a poor judgement into account with regard to your future behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Spartaz, you're angry and rightly so but I can assure you that this is not all a big joke for me, quite the contrary really. I take my role as an admin seriously, perhaps overly so. The way I see it, an admin's job is to facilitate editing, not to prevent it and therefore, yes, other things being equal I do have a preference for unblocking. Yes, I should have at the least informed you of the unblock, that was an oversight and I apologize for that. But, I don't see any history of this and the stuff that is dredged up on ANI is, as usual, only partially reflective of what actually happened. But, of course, if you believe otherwise or see strong evidence that I am some sort of 'serial unblocker against consensus' or that I routinely prop up editors as an involved admin, then you would be well within your rights to start an RfC/U and I respect that. All said and done, I can only really offer you this apology of sorts but, in my conscience anyway, I can assure you I've only acted in good faith. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm parsing that as you have no regrets, don't care what other people think and have every intention of doing this again. If this isn't the case perhaps you could clarify. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Why not just accept what is said instead of trying to "parse" it? What RP says is clear enough to me. Anyone who seeks subliminal messages etc (in relation to anything, anywhere) can always find them, but it usually says more about the person than the message. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, I don't feel your involvement in this discussion helps anyone. Spartaz Humbug! 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Thanks Sitush.) Spartaz, what I've said above should be reasonably clear but I'll do the parsing.... I've apologized to you and said I should have informed you (regret). I've written a lengthy response along with an apology (I do care). I admit I've not specifically said I've no intention of doing this again but, in my view anyway, if we're talking about unblocking Darkness Shines, I would have to be suicidal to unblock him ever again. I have no suicidal tendencies. You're welcome to start an RfC/U. While, obviously, I am not eager to spend the next month or so defending every action that is bound to be dredged up, I don't believe I have done anything (other than in this case) that is indefensible. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • That's much clearer for me now and I happier because I see less likelihood that this will happen again. We all act in the belief that we are doing the right thing but there is a clear strand of opinion (not that this = consensus) that your unblocks are, to put it charitably, overgenerous. In the event that you are ever contemplating putting your head into the lion's mouth again, I strongly urge you to open a discussion at ANI instead. Spartaz Humbug! 15:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that I am a generous unblocker but I don't believe I've done so without the knowledge of the blocking admin (certainly not in the cases dredged up on ANI) other than in this case though, frankly, the number of people I've blocked or unblocked is miniscule. In our current setup, it is far easier to block than it is to unblock so I do believe it is is useful to have the occasional generous unblock, particularly for editors who contribute a lot of content. While many of those unblocked tend to take the rope given to them and then use it to hang themselves (unfortunately!), many do use the vote of confidence that an unblock carries to come out of it as more productive editors. That, in my opinion, is worth the shot. In this case, the least I should have done was to have informed you with an explicit 'reblock if you don't agree' statement, and I do regret that. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of your unblock of Darkness Shines

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. --regentspark (comment) 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Was it too quiet and peaceful? Crtew (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup. You know. Summer days. Warm, humid, nothing going on, and too early for g&ts! --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Udaipur Airport - RM

Dear RegentsPark, It would be very nice if you can visit Talk:Udaipur Airport and express your further view on requested move. Regards. - Jethwarp (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

commented. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Vigyani's talk page.
Message added 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Minorities in Pakistan a honest request for help

Hi Reagentspark can you take a look at Minorities in Pakistan I have taken a glance at the lead paragraph of the article and it contains some major major pov sentences containing "tyranny" and "massacres" all added by a known pov pusher it has become a pov hell hole could you at least clean up the lead a bit? I also had one last question if someone creates an article and certain people do not like it due to there nationalist views should the creator be banned? Futureperf (an admin) seems to be hell bent on banning a user Darknesshines for creating a decent article which has some pov issues but not the scale of minorities in Pakistan thanks a bunch (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, the blocked IP(a sock) had the same concern.-sarvajna (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
RP please just take a look at the article and ignore the tag teaming from Mrt and his crony sarvajna this is a serious issue and not about nationalism any more (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In case Anti-Muslim pogroms in India is not on your watchlist. I just responded to your accusation of OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RP, I would appreciate you strikeing your comment here as the source used does say pogroms. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Struck. --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
RP, could the deleted talk of a deleted article be temporarily (for, say, 3-12 hrs) restored / userfied? I just need a glimpse. Is that technically permitted? There are some comments which I need to collect, that's all, and then one admin can delete it perhaps? You don't have to act upon it, just tell me if it's allowed or not or if there is a policy direct me to that, thanks. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Which article is it. I don't see why not and I'll userify it for you (unless there are blp issues I suppose). I looked at Wikipedia:USERFY#NO and don't see anything against doing this. Of course, since it serves no purpose other than collecting whatever information you need, it'll have to be deleted fairly soon.--regentspark (comment) 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Not article but it's talk and I don't know of any technical barriers either. This is the page, ping me whenever you do it. I just need a few hours. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


I think you might need some coffee... You restored the TALK page to rather than the actual article! PantherLeapord (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He did what I asked him to do. He was kind enough to accomodate my request. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

you and "moi"

You mentioned me on Sitush's page reg my vote at AN/I, we've had a long interaction including a RfC, remember "three admins" you, Spaceman and YellowMonkey? You see AN/I is on my watch-list. I saw the discussion, could have ignored it but saw Oranges' comment and for better or worse I voted the way I did, as a rule I've never voted to support sanctions against anyone, but I think adminship is a job that needs to be done carefully and it isn't being done carefully enough. I am writing here as I'm feeling bad about the vote, bad but not wrong. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem YK. Thanks for this note. --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Ask Darkness Shines not to do it again

DS don't post on Mrt336's talk page again. For any reason. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know who else to tell this to but ask Darkness Shines to avoid commenting on my talk except for leaving formal notification templates to relevant discussions I have had it with him. I don't want to interact with him on my talk. I think that is my prerogative. I requested him multiple times politely but he seems to be ignoring those.[2] Do what an admin is supposed to do in these situations, you know better. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to tell you when you violate 3RR, seriously. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Shut the heck up; they were not reversals. STOP ACCUSING ME OF SOMETHING I DIDN'T DO. I feel insulted. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
DS, he's right. If you're banned from his talk page, you're banned. I suggest you include your warning in edit summaries or contact an admin if you want to warn MrT. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I really have to respectfully disagree, ANI, ANEW and all the rest mean you have to post, as does 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the wise thing would be not to post. You can always include a note in your report that states you're not allowed to post on his talk page. Someone else will post the notice for you. (BTW, that doesn't look remotely like a 3RR violation to me but I'm not going to close the report myself.) --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to if I am wrong, no skin off my teeth. I would expect from the closing admin an admonishment to Mrt to leave a tag till a dispute is resolved, per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to start a new thread in the ANI about this, should DS choose to keep on disagreeing. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Fire away. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bicholim conflict

Hello can you post in my user space the now deleted hoax article "Bicholim conflict". If you are not aware of it see Wikipedia controversies#2013. The Legend of Zorro 07:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain why you want it? It doesn't clearly fall into content that can be userified so if you can give more information that would be helpful.--regentspark (comment) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Just Curious. If userfication of hoax is not possible can it be made a section in my sandbox. If that also not possible no problem. The Legend of Zorro 13:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Tracking it was a little tricky but the page is already in wikispace at Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Bicholim_conflict. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Exactly what was I looking for. The Legend of Zorro 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy/paste query

I've temporarily blanked List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames because it was clearly a copy/paste from the source even though it had subsequently undergone a few (unsourced) changes. There are numerous GSB websites and I'm not even sure that relying on the one that was copied can be justified. Could you perhaps take a quick look at the pre-removal state and apply some brain cells? - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, most GSB-related articles are a complete mess. Take, for example, this one. I started cleaning some a while ago and think that I need to put a concerted effort into it because there is apparently some legal action going on in the community and there has been a lot of additional poor contributions as a consequence of that. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow. That looks like a list of every individual in that sub sub caste! --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It seemed a bit that way, yes. I'm not at all sure what to do with it. I'm also having trouble with Spedian (talk · contribs) at GSB-related articles and simply do not have the time, background knowledge or even inclination to fix the copyright violations etc. And take a look at this edit summary - I've never, ever done this before but what the heck are we supposed to do when more and more entries are being added and yet the {{unreferenced}} is being ignored? I thought that there was a tradition that Brahmins were relatively well-educated and literate people etc, so why these and other GSB articles are among the worst I've seen relating to any caste group is beyond me. The contributors have been getting away with it for far too long. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, Sorry for the mistake. I have edited only Kashi Math. Spedian (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite. For example, you have also been involved at Goud Saraswat Brahmins of Cochin, which I had to hack into a few hours ago. I'm not blaming you for all of this, by the way: I'm a bit frustrated that these problems have existed for so long, that maintenance tags have been ignored and, frankly, that some of the articles were created in the first place. As an example of the latter, I'm struggling to understand why we need a separate article for the Cochin GSBs. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I mentioned you in an ANI thread related to WP:ARBIPA. I'm not sure if you want to comment there or not. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MathSci. I've been following the ANI thread but have preferred to stay out of it for now but will take a look (have been offline for a day). --regentspark (comment) 12:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Took a look. Still no comment :) --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - OrangesRyellow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will definitely comment there. --regentspark (comment) 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


How can we permanently delete or remove the named section from the India-Pakistan page? Based on the shenanigans of placing editors on THE LIST and then letting them off lightly when they mess up, the list is even more meaningless than before. Furthermore, editors who shouldn't really be in the position of warning others, especially editors who have themselves been repeatedly ban, are using warnings to create drama and not furthering the productivity of the area. It's worse than useless-- more like trouble. What process can be used to delete the section forever from the page? Crtew (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You would have to take it to arbcom mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It would need a clarification/amendment. It's not a bad idea to ask for it to be removed, the whole thing seems to be causing more drama than it is worth. But, I'm focusing my energies on non-controversial topics like List of drawn cricket matches between Eton College and Horace Mann School these days. :) --regentspark (comment) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Really? Eton sucks, show me the topic Face-smile.svg Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That should require a warning before we even read or think about the subject matter! Crtew (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
RP, you really should consider our current consensus regarding notability: Number of times Justin Bieber fell asleep watching a TV documentary about the art of riveting in ancient Egyptian boats would never be deleted if taken to AfD. Although, in fairness, obscure cricket-related subjects also seem to have a remarkable ability to survive in the face of common sense ... - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia must publish THE TRUTH! I have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of all these matches - I DREAMED them all! I will ask administrators to BLOCK YOU! --regentspark (comment) 11:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Given the prolixy of cricket literature,I'd be astonished if there wasn't a book about Eaton cricket somewhere to source it by. Wisden was still covering Eaton - Harrow within my living memory although I haven't shelled out for one in at least a decade. Spartaz Humbug! 02:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Shahbag protests‎

RegentsPark, Please see the talk page discussion at 2013 Shahbag protests‎ that I started to generate a discussion about the bias in the article. The biased article is left in mainspace intact, and my self-reverted WP:Bold edit is available to facilitate discussion. Crtew (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead and make your changes stick. I don't know anything about these protests so figuring out the POV is going to be way beyond my pay scale but I don't see why you want to discuss first and change later. Follow BRD, make the changes, and wait for them to be challenged. There is already way too much talk on Wikipedia! --regentspark (comment) 01:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


I have rewritten and expanded on the pogrom article in userspace here It is now an entirly different article and I would like your feedback on it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DS, the problem is the way it is framed it appears to be a POV fork of Religious_violence_in_India#Anti_Muslim_Violence? Is Anti-Muslim violence in India a legitimate stand alone topic, my gut says probably. But only if it is framed in the context of religious violence and rioting. The way it is framed now it looks like its trying to elevate all anti-Muslim riots to the level of a pogrom. A better idea would be to rephrase everything in terms of violence, and then indicate that the views on what this violence is ranges from religious rioting (spontaneous?) to deliberate pogroms and/or genocide. The subject should be the fact that Muslims have been beaten up and killed in India and how the different lenses through which these killings can be viewed. (In my opinion, of course.) --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had rephrased it to specify violence Face-smile.svg, are you suggesting sections which discuss certain incidents as pogroms/genocide? How would you break the article up yourself? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we centralise this discussion rather than using our user talk pages?—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead para to reflect what I think would be roughly the right approach. As an example. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. I've just taken a quick read-through and it seems rather disjointed: almost an unbulleted list of events that lacks flow and is likely to become a pov-magnet every time another episode kicks off. I've not looked at the sources but I think it would benefit from some sort of coherence being brought to bear. This might also tighten it up in a way that will prevent it from degenerating into a list in future. And, definitely, the varying nature of the incidents should be emphasised rather than the present tendency that seems to drift towards everything being a pogrom. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, please feel free to jump in if you have some time to spare, perhaps as S Marshall has said we can use the talk page of the draft to discuss and you guys can let me know were I am going wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Butt away Sitush. The goat act suits you :) But seriously, I agree with you. At present, it appears that the point of the article is to show that there are anti-Muslim pogroms in India. The reality, on the other hand, is that calling these acts of violence pogroms is only one view, and a minority one at that too. I guess it's not just a rewrite it needs but a new point of view. (I'll move all this to the talk page.) --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to User:Darkness Shines/Anti-Muslim violence in India so that the previous history will not be in the article when moved to mainspace. I suspect if any trace of the pogroms article was in the history it would cause a few arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I seem to recall that RegentsPark made some contributions? Because of the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, it will be necessary to decide whether a selective history merge is appropriate. If so RegentsPark has the technical ability to perform the merge.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well he will have to do it after it hits mainspace, given the way my name is currently being spammed all over the shop and requests are being made for my block/ban it is probably just a matter of time till somebody obliges. RP, can you let me know if that is OK please? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look. I'm not concerned about my edits not appearing in the history but there may be others. Give me 20 minutes.--regentspark (comment) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Except for a couple of edits by Solomon, and my genius lead paragraph (!), I don't see anything worth merging. The easiest way to do this is to restore Anti-Muslim Violence in India with a redirect to the lowercase v and with history intact. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If you would be so kind O genius of lede paragraph writing Face-smile.svg Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
You can move them yourself when you're ready. I don't have the time to look at the text right now but could later this afternoon. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
....yeesh, I've just read AN/I. That's not something I normally do so I was unaware of all this background. You know what? I've decided I won't be touching this topic area with a barge pole.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup. It's a humungous mess. Makes soap operas look tame in comparison. :) --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have requested a history merge of talk page. I am not at all interested in history merge of the actual page. The Legend of Zorro 17:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Athaenara has deleted the redirect as implausible (rightly) and so I guess a history merge is called for anyway. I'll try to do it tomorrow. --regentspark (comment) 02:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
RP, are you keeping an eye on this article? A few editors seem to think academic sources are no good for statements of fact contrary to policy. If you have time please look at this section. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry DS. You're on your own with this one. Just go through the normal DR process. BTW, the DYK was a bit over the top. --regentspark (comment) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I imagine this DYK nomination is why they are playing silly buggers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well... imagination can be never wrong. But even if you withdraw the DYK nom, our comments are still gonna come until the article gets proper. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not asking you to weigh in, I am asking you to keep an eye on things. You are familiar with the history of the article. I thought DYKs were meant to be "over the top" A catchy line to pull people in? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Catchy lines yes. But a provocative DYK given the history of this article does make me question your judgement. Of the comments on the talk page, the ones made by Anir1uph seem quite sensible - perhaps you could work with him on refining the article? --regentspark (comment) 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
We all have a little "tabloid" about us I suppose. Anir1uph is a reasonable fellow, and coming up with some good thoughts and I am hoping he continues to help out there. Catch you later. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just so you know, I do listen on the odd occasion. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Never doubted it DS :) --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I am kinda new to this topic area, having generally edited defence-related article. Will try my best :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)