User talk:Darkness Shines

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

When admins make up policy when they like and threaten to block a user [1] for using a fucking template for the reason it is there then the socks can have this fucking shithole.

Sockpuppet

I am quite familiar with the methods that are frequently used to intimidate or shut down rival users on Wikipedia. I must confess, however, that I am not current with the policy legalese. If my IP address or location can be checked against that of Cwmacdougall, which I am in favor of, it will be demonstrated that we are two different people. It is absurd to think this was even necessary, however. I brought the article to Cwmacdougall's attention via the WikiProject Russia page, and I don't have the time or interest to create alternate personas for the purpose of talking to myself on Wikipedia pages. I do not know the editors on either side of the dispute. InformedContent (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DS, come on, using an edit war as an excuse to file an SPI should be beyond your capability. Furthermore, your your battleground mentality on the SPI, where you said "A slap on the wrists this time should suit", is inappropriate and uncivil. I took a good while just to pour over the evidence that I went digging for myself (which I really shouldn't of done, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt) and I could just find enough to justify a check. This is also another instance of where you are biting new editors by tagging their userpage, especially as a new editor. I want to help you to find a solution where you can still work with the SPI team and WP admins, without all this extra crap, but your making it hard to do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DS, it is immensely challenging contributing to a subject area rife with serial sockpuppets and to continue to assume good faith when dealing with new editors that evince a similar POV. If you ever want a second opinion on an SPI, don't hesitate to ask me. Ankh.Morpork 00:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DQ, a slap on the wrists means I would prefer a stern warning given over a block. And a new editor turning up to revert for another new editor seems suspicious enough to me to file an SPI. I very much doubt I am the first to do so in fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked, and Cwmacdougall's edits go all the way back to 2007. He has apparently not edited with regularity from then to now, but I would hardly say that qualifies him as a "new editor". InformedContent (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in response. Damned midterms and projects) @DS, yes I got the idea of what you meant, but your involved with the subject area, and the only evidence you put out against a long term contributor is two diffs in an edit war, that are obviously going to be the same content and your calling that a sock. I thought you would have at least gone through the contribs to find a little more than that. I'm not saying you were wrong to file the SPI, as hell I ran the check myself, but the way you approached it is what the issue is. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request declined

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request naming you as a party has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

White Terror Dispute

I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard re the White Terror article.cwmacdougall 23:24, 5 November 2012

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "White Terror". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Have you filed at WP:SPI regarding this issue? If not then you should do because explicitly accusing people of being socks without actually doing something about it is likely to get you into trouble. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't spot it. I'd still be wary of stating someone is definitely a sock before the SPI is over, but your mileage may vary. The number of times I have thought it is immense! - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry of assertive action on the article regarding Hazara persecution

Hey, I'd like to ask the exact reason the user User:Arctan371 is being punished for? He recently left his concerns on the Feedback dashboard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard/58083 ), and I feel a tendency to defend his cause, since I went through the same thing in the past, and my ethnic group is going through a slower version of the same thing. Depending on what the reason was for his punishment shall I defend him, of course. It seemed, at first glance, that his edits were constructive, with some of them having a source, though with some grammatical errors that could very easily be fixed. Why were these contributions not accepted and fixed? Why were they blocked, including the part with a citation? I'm curious, and slightly afraid that this dispute is involving vengeful tactics, instead of fair, balanced, and calm resolution from both sides equally. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted him based on this [3] That and the fact he has not used the talk page, nor citations. I am not from Pakistan and if you look at this talk page [4] you will see I am not trying to hide anything, I have in fact given academic sources for the article which discuss the ongoing genocidal actions against these people. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

Regarding your recent edit[5], there is in fact a lot wrong with the material "apart from the description". You might have found this out if you had looked at the cited source or consulted the relevant talk page discussion before reverting.

The cited source is in fact a video created by a youtube user using some footage from a fox news report and other footage from unknown sources spliced together to create a montage to which the youtube user has added his own commentary and soundtrack. As such it does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. Also adding any editor's interpretation of the video to a Wikipedia article would be OR. So whether it is Nableezy's interpretation or the sockpuppet of a blocked user's interpretation that you restored it would be equally inappropriate. Dlv999 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

NO, it is a single image. Not a video. There is an issue with it, but if you do not see it then this is not really my problem. The licence on the pic is fine, the image is RS regardless of what you guys think. Ask politly and I shall let you know what the problem with that image is Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to look at your diff You restored a blocked editors OR interpretation of a (non RS) you tube video, giving the video as the citation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I need do no such thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that you made a new friend in AnkhMorpork, I am very happy for you. What isnt nice is you foolishly restoring material cited to a youtube video uploaded by some random person on the internet. In case you hadnt noticed, you didnt restore an image. You restored, without comment, material sourced to among the crappiest sources I have seen used in my time here. So, congratulations for that. For that incredibly foolish edit you have earned yourself a shiny notification of the ARBPIA case. If you insist on tagging in for your new pal to make foolish edits, you may well be reported to AE. nableezy - 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.