User talk:Darkness Shines: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Once this block is over...: trying to help, honestly |
Fuck the lot of you, I'm done in two weeks I'll have a new account and leave this fucking shit behind Tag: Blanking |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== You've got mail == |
|||
{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=[[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
== January 2018 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for IBAN violations resulting from a bad-faith IBAN report. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
|||
So you still don't understand IBAN policy then, how sad [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Unblock == |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=There was nothing bad Faith in my report, I believe linking to my edits are a violation of tHe IBAN and as such reported it, this block is obviously wrong so kindly unblock me [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 15:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | decline = Telling someone "I can't comment" and linking to your edits is the exact opposite of violating the ban, he was not interacting with you and was trying to avoid doing so. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{ping|RickinBaltimore}} How the fuck can I be blocked for not violating an the IBAN? This is fucking ridiculous,I'm blocked for nothing. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 16:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{Unblock on hold | 1=SarekOfVulcan| 2=How is thinking that someone linking to my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Labour_Party&dir=prev&action=history edits] in a post a violation of an IBAN and then reporting that? I'm blocked for repirting what I believed was a violation and then reporting it, that is bullshit. Kindly unblock me, I have not violated any policies [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | 3 = Statements of the obvious: raising a suspected IBAN violation at ANI is not itself a breach of the IBAN ([[WP:BANEX]]). Going on and on about it after it's resolved, is potentially disruptive ([[wp:idht]]). That was all made clear at ANI; the issue didn't really need escalation after that. Still here we are. |
|||
Potentially unpopular suggestion in the spirit of a return to content editing: |
|||
* Darkness Shines, please accept the view of the closing administrator at ANI that the IBAN was not breached on this occasion, and avoid relitigating that specific claim. |
|||
* SarekOfVulcan, please consider lifting the block on the good-faith assumption that the relitigation message has been heard. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 01:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
DS, you were blocked for not dropping it after being told by more then one admin it was not a violation (I happen to agree with you is was, but then I have been wrong before about rules violations). Swearing at admins over this and refusing to drop it will likely get a longer block, I suggest you drop it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I did fucking drop it, this block is over what i {{diff2|820011588|said}} to Sarek, and for no other reason. It's a bullshit petty block. And why two weeks for a first violation? Same fucking reason [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 16:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I was going to drop this but feel it might be useful to explain why both you and Gilmore have had blocks in the past. I think (and this is only my opinion) that a lot of admins are getting thoroughly sick and tired of the pair of you fetching up all the time complaining about each other (indeed I seem to recall seeing just this said on ANI more then once). Thus I think what is now be taken is a (pretty much) zero tolerance attitude. As I said I think if you do not drop this the ban will get extended. I would also suggest that you do not make any more reports about Gilmore for a wee while.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::You don't get it do you, reporting someone for what you think is a violation is fucking exempted under the policy, you can't get blocked for reporting what you believe are violations, which is why this block is wrong. Ive reported two violations, one upheld and this one. So there is no reason whatsoever within policy for this bollocks. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 16:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I feel like I have to follow on. Mr. Gilmore has certainly been in the wrong before. I don't think anyone would dispute that. And you certainly have an argument for a technical ban, but you have to understand that reasonable minds can differ, and when most seem to break against you, digging in your heels won't help. I personally don't think you deserved a two-week block, but I also think it was reasonable under the circumstances. I mean this all in good faith, and I guess I would just encourage you in the future when dealing with this particular editor to just take an extra moment before posting. Have a nice day. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I did not dig it my heels, I reported what I thought was a violation, I then asked how linking to my edits was not a violation, you will note I hope that the block only came after what I said to Sarek, i broke no policies, and this block bollocks, I have no idea how anyone can think it ok to block an editor for not violating policies [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 16:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::DS, as someone who defended you a fair bit on at least one previous block, you need to heed some good advice and find a way to be drama free for a good long while, as in, not have your name popping up on noticeboards for a good six months or a year. If you can't, and you continue as you have been for the past six months or so, then it is seemingly increasingly likely you're going to soon find your self on an extended break, and there's not going to be very much community patience left to allow very many to line up in your defense. You've made a lot of valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, and I don't want to see that end, but we cannot continue like this. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::I want to respond to [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]]'s comment to help clarify things. There is nothing wrong with reporting an issue to ANI if you have a legitimate belief that a violation is occurring. I don't want ''anyone'' to ever feel that they can't report something they believe is a problem and ask for administrator attention. Speaking to this specific situation: the initial report you made at ANI wasn't a problem; you believed that what you saw was a violation and you reported it - that's absolutely fine. But if others tell you that what you reported isn't a violation or when they ask that you drop the stick and stop, it's in your best interest to listen and do this - especially given that this is a two-way IBAN. The ANI discussion was fine until it became heated and combative, and when it continues after being warned and told to stop, I find it acceptable to [[WP:BOOMERANG|enforce the sanction on the reporter]] if the disruptive nature is clearly not going to cease. This is where I believe that the balance between allowing one to legitimately report a problem without fear of being blocked for doing so ends, and enforcing a sanction when the discussion becomes heated and doesn't stop despite being asked to do so begins. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Funny then that I didn't get blocked until I said to Sarek that reporting IBAN violations was not a blockable offense, I did not say anything about the violation in my last post, I was threatened with a block and pointed out the policy to an admin who obviously gas no clue about it, see the last block he handed out, he made policy up then and he has now. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 20:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It would be excusable if the blocking admin truly had no clue. The fact is he simply doesn't care about it. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
As someone who has been on the periphery of Gilmore and DS's constant bickering and as someone who has tried to talk them down off the ledge a few times, I find {{u|SarekOfVulcan}}'s block to be an ''extreme'' overreaction and inappropriately punitive block, much like the last few. At this point, Sarek, I believe you have become involved to the point that you are unable to make a credible and/or unbiased block to either user. That being said: DS, just drop it already. You're exhausting the people who have been on your side. I understand you want the IBAN enforced, but you should really learn to pick your battles moving forward. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 21:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
"Extreme", "overreaction", "inappropriately punitive", ''and'' [[WP:INVOLVED]]. Contrary to what Oshwah says above, the reason given is: "bad faith ANI report". Unbelievable! Truly unbelievable. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 21:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::The initial report may not have been in bad faith. Persisting after 3 independent editors pointed out that it wasn't an IBAN vio, but an attempt to ''avoid'' an IBAN vio is where the bad faith came in. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 21:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|SarekOfVulcan}} And it should be reversed immediately as a terrible block by an involved admin. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 21:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Bullshit Sarek you blocked me for {{diff2|820011588|this}}, you didn't like being called on your inability to understand the policy [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 21:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:SarekOfVulcan]]: Monday-morning quarterbacking aside, how do you respond to the multiple editors who have opined that this block is a clear violation of [[WP:INVOLVED]]? [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 21:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.}} --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Disgusting behavior Sarek. You’ve got an ax to grind with Darkness Shines, and you know it. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 21:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That he would highlight the very text that unambiguously proves him involved, is the epitome of "disgusting behavior"; it literally screams: "I'm an administrator, therefore I am infallible". [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*It would have been better for someone else to have blocked instead of {{u|SarekOfVulcan}}. Sarek's last block of DS was overturned by the community (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=816347873&oldid=816336859 here]). This block appears to have an element of revenge to it. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 21:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**The reason it appears to have an element of revenge to it is because it has an element of revenge to it. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 21:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
And now Sarek is blatantly {{diff2|820066724|lieing}}, This is not the third block for IBAN vios, I've only had one, which was overturned cos it was bollocks, and now this one, which is of course also bollocks [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:It wasn't a lie, it was confusion. I've struck my original comment and apologized there. Again, I'm sorry for getting it wrong. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 22:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*I have self-reverted, it was rather untimely of me to propose such thing. Apologies. [[User talk:My name is not dave|<span style="color:#000000">'''''!'''''</span><span style="color:#F00">'''dave'''</span>]] 22:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Reyk}} {{diff2|820075794|Wrong}}, I never said saying he can't talk about the IBAN was a violation, I said linking to my contributions in the post was a vio, that us very different [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe next time, instead of running to ANI, you should talk to an administrator you trust? You know, ask questions instead of trying to get someone blocked? Heck, your ANI thread isn't even "Is this a violation?" You were sure it was, and still(?) think it is. That's not going to get you out of this ban. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:You think I trust administrators? Three only, and two of them are involved, the other I'd not bother as he has had personal issues. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 23:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Try AlexF sometime, he's generally sane. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 23:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sarek, given how much DS is upset with you right now, I gotta question what you think continuing to reply is going to accomplish. If he asks you a direct question, sure, but otherwise I'd leave him be. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 23:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:You don't trust any? Not at all? Bishonen is pretty level headed. But honestly, if you don't trust anyone here, then you may just want to not edit anymore, because clearly you aren't going to have a good time. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 23:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I trust Bish, and i wouldn't bother her over shite like this. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Alright well, I hate to say it, but it sounds like you should have. And you probably should in the future as well. No offense, but this wasn't your best judgement. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 00:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::It’s entirely understandable that DS is distrustful of admins. <s>Sarek’s clearly out to get him and protect his buddy Gilmore.</s> A two week block for a “bad faith AI report” - gimme a break. |
|||
:::::Casting aspirations like that might get you blocked as well... --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 00:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I can point out 4 reports made against me which were obviously not vios, No blocks were handed out for them? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 00:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The block wasn't because you made the report. The block was because you made the report, got told you were wrong, and then continued after being told to stop and that continuing would be a violation. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 00:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Wrong, i got blocked after {{diff2|820011588|this}} comment, which funnily enough is not me going on about a vio, it's pointing out policy to an admin whi is clueless about said policy [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 00:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The block was because Sarek was champing at the bit for his pound of flesh, and every last one of us knows that. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 00:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Alright buddy, sure. Let's ignore the fact that no administrator has agreed, much less unblocked you. This is feeling a lot like a [[WP:notthem]] situation. Really though, BMK makes an excellent point. Good luck with your appeal. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 00:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Euryalus}}, see my comment on ANI; I was thinking about unblocking, FWIW. Or at least reducing substantially. You're welcome to act without checking with me first, either way, just want you to know. I'm AFK for a few hours. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 01:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah me too, but put it on hold to give DS/SOV a further opportunity to comment before accept/decline. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 01:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I am not relitigating it, I am standing by the fact that I was blocked for telling Sarek that reporting what I thought was a vio was within policy and that is why he blocked me, because he did not like it. The proof is in the diffs. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Without commenting on the merits of the block itself, one thing which IMO has been largely missed in this discussion (Slatersteven touched on it very briefly) is how the heck did Darkness Shines become aware of that post so fast that they could query it within 9 minutes [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=820004284] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=820005334]? There are no posts on DS's talk page between the time it was posted and their query [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarkness_Shines&type=revision&diff=820011862&oldid=819858644]. Were they emailed about it? AFAIK, there is no <del>ping</del><ins>notification</ins> when someone makes an external link to the contrib history of a page you've recently edited <ins>or created</ins>, nor of one <del>you've followed</del><ins>you're following</ins>. Since it was a comment by someone they had an iban with and on said editor's talk page, they definitely should not have been following either such that they could become aware of it that way. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC) <ins>04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)</ins> |
|||
::His talk page has been on my watchlist since I first ran into him, and a post titled ANI made me curious, kinda simple really. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually not 'simple really'. As I already hinted at, if you think it's okay to keep the talk page of someone you have an iban with on your watch list, I think you seriously do not understand the purpose of an iban. I'm not saying it's enough to justify a block, but next time you are blocked for an iban violation you should expect it to be a long one if you keep this up. The fact you added their talk page before the iban may mean it was okay to add it in the first place. It doesn't mean it's acceptable to keep it there. It's easy to remove pages from your watch list when they are clearly no longer appropriate. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:It shouldn't be possible for an editor to "not drop the stick" at an ANI request. An administrator can just close the discussion. Second, although I am not familiar with the details of this IBAN, it seems that linking to the other persons edits verses linking to the IBAN decision could be considered a violation with enough good faith that raising it isn't blockable. The block turned a kerfuffle into the exact kind of drama IBANs are created to prevent. It seems odd that the first action is to block rather than close the ANI. Heavy handed blocks aren't needed. "Two men enter, one man leaves" was a silly movie line, not the ANI creed. "No action" or "Not a violation" close at ANI solves the problem and should have been done before hitting the block button. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==An uninvolved admin's review== |
|||
Here's why a block isn't insane: |
|||
*The initial request was deeply unimpressive. First, because it wasn't really an "interaction" at all. And second, because there was no harm done to DS by CWG's post, so the *only* conceivable intent was to try to get an enemy in trouble "legally". |
|||
*The whole reason for the iban is that the community is sick of the past history of trying to get each other in trouble, and making others miserable in the process. And whether or not DS's request was a technical iban violation, it still boils down to trying to get CWG in trouble and making others miserable in the process. |
|||
*Once told that it wasn't an iban violation, DS didn't take no for answer. Also unimpressive. |
|||
Here's the problem with the block, though: |
|||
*SoV had previously blocked DS for an iban violation, and it was overturned by consensus at ANI, and now SoV blocks the same person for the same basic reason. Is it really true that some people don't see the horrible optics here? |
|||
*SoV's final warning was unnecessarily aggressive, seemingly designed to dare DS to try something rather than deescalate. '''Why couldn't he just have closed the thread?''' |
|||
*DS did not violate the iban after SoV's warning. He was a snot to SoV, and wouldn't drop the stick, but he didn't violate the iban. But the block was expressly for violating the iban. |
|||
*It's not good when you dare someone to mouth off to you, they mouth off, and you block them. Even if you're correct and they're in the wrong about the underlying issue. |
|||
*When something is borderline like this, you don't slavishly follow the 1 week/2 week/1 month progression. |
|||
So, should we make the people who rightfully are really fucking sick of the feud happy, and keep DS blocked, even if the block is problematic? Or should we make the people who are really fucking sick of admins "protecting their own" (from their perspective) happy, and overturn the block, even if DS was feuding? Or should we try to compromise, and piss 100% of the people off? |
|||
I'd choose Option C, piss everyone off. I don't really care much anymore what makes DS or his friends or SoV or his friends happy, or is "fair" to them. I think the *community* needs to see some brakes be applied to this kind of blocking more than it needs to be protected from DS's feuding for 2 weeks. If it happens again someone besides SoV will no doubt be willing to block for a few weeks or a month or indef. |
|||
So, unless by tomorrow morning (eastern US time) an uninvolved person gives me good reason to have second thoughts (or unless another admin wants to handle it differently, I'm not calling dibs here) I plan to reduce the block to 48 hours, not so much for an iban violation, but for trying to find a legal way to get an enemy who did not harm him in trouble, even after knowing the community was exhausted of watching the feud. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree with most of the above. The whole "rough diamond with a foul temper" thing wears thin after a while, but this specific block no longer has much point. Left to me I'd lift it right now, but happy to leave as is until Floquenbeam's deadline above, to facilitate further discussion. Other views welcome. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 06:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I think you will all be right back here in a week.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk:Jorm|talk]]) 06:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Probably, but there's always the outside chance that Sarek will change his ways. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Na Jorm is right, the IBAN was {{diff2|820093643|violated}} again after I was blocked for not violating it, so no doubt that means I will have to be blocked again. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 08:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think you linked to the wrong users, that was not Gilmores edit.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ahh I think you mean this one [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sea_lioning&diff=next&oldid=820093643]], Mmmm, is this really a violation, not being able to comment on AFD's started by the other user?.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes its a vio Cyber explicitly stated do not respond in conversations started by the other user [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 09:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Floquenbeam}} I would decline the unblock request and not shorten it. DS is clearly not getting the message and, in fact, on the basis of the discussion above I would seriously consider disabling TP access for the duration. Gilmore's comment at the root of all this was clearly not a violation (to add to the chorus of voices saying this) and the whole thing stinks of a bad-faith attempt to get another user sanctioned. SOV's block was both within policy (though I get that some here think that policy should be broader) and, IMO, correct on the merits. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 10:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::So your response to an IBAN vio is to block the one who didn't violate it? And perhaps if a user who constantly accuses me of stalking yet who magically appears at four or five articles in the space of a few weeks would not get on your tits then by all means make what is a shitty block worse [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 10:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Christ man, you have admins going to bat for you suggesting that the block be shortened, and you're still acting as if you've done absolutely nothing wrong. Do you honestly not understand at all that you are in a hole and refuse to stop digging? You're going to talk your way out of a ban reduction simply because you are incapable of shutting up. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 11:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not fucking saying I did nothing wrong GR wants TP access revoked after I point out a blatant violation I may be a cunt but that doesn't give him the right to try fucking me [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 11:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's not GR fucking you, it's you fucking you. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 11:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Bollocks I just pointed out a violation GR says fo not shorten block and revoke TP access that's defo fycking me. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 11:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Once this block is over... == |
|||
...whenever that may be, you need to do a few things. You need to embrace your own IBAN. You need to act as if the other party doesn't exist. That includes not looking for possible violations. If you do get wind of a possible violation, don't bring it up in the open. Email a good admin, such as Floq, and ask him about it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 12:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Do an editor interaction analysis it's fucking impossible to ignore someone who constantly turns up at articles you edit. I am being deliberately provoked and have had enough of it [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 12:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::No it is not, if they are trying to provoke you by (for example) saying "Keep" in and AFD then the problem is you not them. You might well be right (I suspect to a degree you are) and Gilmore is trying to wind you up. But frankly the way he is doing should not be having the effect it has on you, and could be easily ignored (in fact I would point out the ANI you launched was in response to something YOU looked for, not him looking for you).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Seriousl? He has now appeared at roughly 7 articles I edit in a week or so, yet the problem is with me? Great fucking logic there mate [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 12:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Did you even bother to read what I wrote?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I think there may be only one way to end this (and it is a harsh one), that both DS and Gilmore are banned form ever editing any page the other goes to first, then he cannot wind you up without getting a ban.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:That is exactly what I intend to ask for once unblocked[[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 12:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::So then it becomes a race to "claim" articles before the other editor? I would oppose that (not that it matters all that much) because I don't like to see the encyclopedia reduced to a conduit for personal grievances. I would sooner argue for matching indef blocks on the basis that this feud is beginning to verge on [[WP:NOTHERE]] territory. N.B., that is not what I am arguing at this time. You two don't need to like each other. You don't have to cooperate. But you need to find a way to coexist here. I am honestly not assigning fault, but just from reading the recent stuff here, Darkness, you really don't help yourself. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 13:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||