User talk:Darkness Shines

Revert on Sati

Only one source is Tagged, not any other, you simply reverted back to the favorite version of Single purpose account, without explaining much.

Thanks OccultZone (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you were obliquely mentioned

FYI, I made reference to the AFD "filing party" as an edit warrior, without naming names, but of course I meant you. The mention is here. I'm not seeking any action against you specifically, just wanting the process to work without shortcutting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

François Ponchaud

Hello! Your submission of François Ponchaud at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be surprised

You should not be surprised. There was zero chance that it would be deleted. There may be no cabel, but if there were this one would be so deeply entrenched as to be impossible to break. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convince me without histrionics but with logic and discussion of the content of RSs that the list criteria are original research, and I'll switch to "delete". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything made up by Wikipedia editors one day is OR, how can you not know that? Not that it matters as I am about to be sanctioned for editing in good faith, you gotta love Wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NEAG. I went back and looked at the history of the definition and you guys made it up! End of story. There are no reliable sources talking about it. On top of that your group defined what is considered a scientist. Now if that is not "logical" enough for you than that is your problem. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a reply, speak at the article talk page. You might even convince me, but diff-less accusatory bludgeoning won't work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-warring

Hello. In the course of closing the recent AfD concerning List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I noticed that you have recently, on 30 December 2013, engaged in an edit-war in which you sought to suppress all of the content of the list, after nominating it for deletion, to wit:

The article was then protected following a AN3 report, ending the revert war. As you are aware, the topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBCC#Standard discretionary sanctions), and edit-warring is forbidden.

You contend in your edit summaries that your content removals were based on WP:BLP. However, it appears that your interpretation of the BLP policy as applying to this article is contested, and the AfD did not result in consensus that the article's contents do in fact violate that policy. Per WP:3RRNO, "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Your recourse to edit-warring, against multiple good-faith editors, to suppress the content that you consider to violate WP:BLP strikes me as particularly inappropriate because you did so while a deletion discussion which you initiated was underway, which would have been the appropriate forum in which to find a consensus-based solution to the question of whether or not this list violates the BLP policy. By attempting to ram through your preferred outcome of the deletion discussion by way of edit-warring, you violated the principle that Wikipedia content is determined by consensus, and the edit-warring policy.

For these reasons, I consider imposing discretionary sanctions against you to prevent you from repeating such actions. You now have the opportunity to respond to this and to make an argument why I should not do so, or any other statement that might help resolve this problem. Regards, Sandstein 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if others think my interpretation of BLP is wrong, I was acting in goog faith. Sanction away. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, look here I am not the only editor who is saying there are BLP violations in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that arguments can and have been made that this list violates the BLP policy in some way, but arguments against this view have also been made in good faith. These disagreements must be resolved in an orderly consensus-based process and not through edit-warring. In addition, arguing that the entire list violates the BLP policy is equivalent to the argument you made at the then-ongoing AfD that the whole article should be deleted. You may not disrupt or preempt an ongoing community deletion discussion by attempting to force through the outcome you prefer via edit-warring.

To prevent continued disruption by you, you are sanctioned as described below.

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are prohibited from reverting (as defined at WP:3RR) any edit to an article if that edit or article is related to the topic of climate change. You may however attempt to convince others to revert the edit. This restriction applies without exceptions, including for reverting vandalism or WP:BLP violations.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) discussed above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBCC#Standard discretionary sanctions and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]