User talk:Darkness Shines

IP: 129.252.69.40 / GarnetAndBlack = same user

Sorry I was unable to respond. It would have been best if you had read the talk / history pages first.[1][2] User:129.252.69.40 / User:GarnetAndBlack / User:ViperNerd / User:129.252.69.41 are all the same user. I see that you re-reverted some biased / redundant content on Clemson University related pages that User:GarnetAndBlack has been caught pushing through edit-warring / puppetry over the past several years [3][4], which he was already blocked about [5][6]. GarnetAndBlack is just trying to fool people into keeping his content there, which I see he has already done. Seems that various users have been trying to remove the actual sockpuppetry that got left on the article, not the other way around. Apologies & Thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I had suspicions but not enough time to follow up, shall be a little more careful henceforth. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a little overwhelmed here. Unlike troll type users, I really don't enjoy this kind of stuff. I really do appreciate you taking the time to look at this stuff. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but I'm confused. You "really don't enjoy this kind of stuff"? Well, a look at your User Contributions page sure paints a different picture[7]. Is that what the contributions of a "troll type user" look like? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind citing your "good faith" re-vert here: I've noticed that it's been referenced to already. [8] Best. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the link here? I'd prefer things that way. Happen to notice your edit got changed again? [9] Feel free to change it back, and add it to my report if it gets reverted again. [User:ThomasC.Wolfe|ThomasC.Wolfe]] (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What link were? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Did it go through? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the IP which posted then? If so your cleared of sockpuppetry Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. But I can't believe this guy would actually stalk me to the degree to post my ip on a phony sockpuppetry report. Is there an number I can contact Wikipedia? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you just detail stuff in my email. I feel like my privacy was violated. Thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupy Wall Street. 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) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re my Talk Page

Hi. Did you perchance leave a message on my User Talk Page? There seemed to be a hint or suggestion of something and then 'poof'! Nothing. Was it anything important, that i could help out with pl? Regs, Khani100 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Reverting while ignoring the open discussion on talk page

Well Darkness Shines may you specify why are you insisting to add multiple images of object (tomb) in article related to person (Muhammad Iqbal). And please specify the reason to ignore the ongoing discussion on talk page and reverting the edit here. --Omer123hussain (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you have self reverted I may consider it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please justify your revert here while the issue was under discussion.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just did. And do not come over here acting all self righteous just because you were edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am responding here to your query left by you on my talk page, Other wise i have no interest to write on others talk page, And discussion was already open on article talk page.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange, I do not recall leaving a query on your talk page, I do recall leaving you a warning to self revert as you had violated 3RR. See you on the talk page of the article in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for further breach of interaction ban - filing yet another groundless SPI against Top Gun. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

And another bad block, you guys are great at these. Reporting suspected sockpuppetry is not an IBAN violation as was clarified when one was filed against me. Please unblock me so I may continue editing as this block serves not to protect the project and is in fact punitive. Elen also says I filed another groundless SPI This is the first and only SPI I have filed against the user in question. I am unsure were Elen got the idea I had filed one previously. I also do not think the accusation was groundless, anyone can look at the evidence presented. I have seen users get blocked for less on DUCK. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I was actually about to make the block Elen made just before she did, but she beat me to it. This SPI though was beyond a sock filing when you listed TopGun as the master (especially after the previous SPI case where a clerk said that it was unlikely to be Nangparbat), otherwise it would have been fine. This is also not the first case you have made against TopGun. Personally, I'd call it harassment, but that's me. When you can prove you can stop going after TopGun, maybe we will look at retracting the block. Your right that this is the first public SPI you have filed, but the other ones where you have included 'private' evidence have involved TopGun. And to top of the end of your appeal, the evidence against TopGun is horribly worked up and the excuse of an edit war going on. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice of SPI restriction

In my SPI clerk hat, you are being restricted from:

1. Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters)
2. From using presenting evidence against established users
3. From filling huge SPIs with multiple editors involved (5 is a general max)

This is an indefinite restriction till you can show otherwise that you will not waste SPI clerk time with baseless cases. Your normal cases (which you have been pretty good with recently) are still allowed and encouraged. Appeal is to the SPI clerk/CU team as a whole, and I will be giving them notice of this restriction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)