User talk:Darkness Shines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. It might be less than a year, but it's well over 'standard offer territory,' as as the blocking admin put it :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
What has that to do with missing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda, I'm guessing Fortuna is hinting that it's been a year, nearly since I used a sock and I should be near ready for an unblock request. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd give it another month though. You're almost there.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ya but as it takes a month for someone to say no, doing it now would save time :-) Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkness Shines (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Well it's been two years since I was blocked and near a year since I used a sock, so what are the chances of my being allowed to edit again? Darkness Shines (talk) 9:30 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

The conditions of unblocking have been met, with no objection from the blocking admin. Darkness Shines has agreed to abide by the conditions placed on them to be unblocked.

Darkness Shines, remember to take things slowly, and take a deep breath if things get tense.

I used to be hot headed myself when I was a new user here, and I found stepping back for a couple minutes really help. Also remember that violating the conditions you have agreed to can possibly result in an immediate block, and it may be indefinite again.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Personally, I wouldn't mind unblocking, unless someone else objects. I'm too good natured.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Ping Heimstern as he is the blocking admin.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: Heimstern has not been onsite for a month. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, ~six weeks in fact. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If it were my decision alone, I would personally unblock and let you edit with the condition you stay away from the articles mentioned in the arbitration case until the full year has elapsed, but the fact that this is an ArbCom block is what's stopping me. Pinging PhilKnight for his opinion.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The year has passed though, it's no longer an arbitration block regentspark for comments as he knows about this Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@RegentsPark:O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The history is here. DS was given a one-year block in May 2015 for edit warring. In May 2016, the lifting of the block was denied due to "recent block evasion". His last activity of this kind was in September July 2016, and it has been more than six months since then. Given that DS has been a good content-contributor and his socking was to fight against other dreaded socks, I think it is reasonable to close this chapter, and let DS back in with some restrictions against edit warring. I will be happy to shepherd DS back into normalcy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been long enough, I'd say. Let him come back, with a 1RR restriction, a civility restriction, and leaving the topic restrictions in place, and I don't think anybody can complain too much; if he returns, he will be under so much scrutiny in any case that misdemeanors will be noticed very quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Can you show me that one-year block in May 2015? I don't see any such block in the block log. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Here is the blocknotice on the talk page. No idea why it has two boxes in it. I didn't check the block log, but it looks like the blocking admin was in two minds. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It was technically an indef block, the first year of which was declared to be an arbitration enforcement block (that being the maximum allowed length for such actions), the remainder being a normal indef block for disruption. The AE thread is here: [1]. Fut.Perf. 19:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's clear to me that the block was intended to only be a year so I would be willing to unblock, despite it being an AE block, considering we have passed said year. The socking incident was last July, but considering that we've almost hit a year, I'll offer the following terms, provided the blocking admin doesn't object over the next 24 hours, or no additional objections are raised.
    1. You agree to hold yourself to 1RR over the next 6 months.
    2. You agree to remain civil when communicating with other users, and report them or seek WP:3O or WP:DR as needed.
    3. Existing topic restrictions already imposed on you will remain in effect and must be appealed separately.
    4. You agree to stay away from the India-Pakistan related articles for the next 6 months.
Violating these terms can result in a block, possibly indefinite. I don't like seeing productive editors blocked, so it's prudent to start slow.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
DS, the ball is in your court now.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I'll note that the condition to "stay away from the India-Pakistan related articles for the next 6 months" is vacuous, as DS is already under an indefinite topic ban from that area (and let's avoid the misunderstanding that topic ban would somehow automatically get lifted in six months). It would certainly be better if admins did their homework first before making hasty and uninformed unblock offers. This one clearly didn't even bother to read the AE thread that led to the block. Fut.Perf. 07:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with the restrictions listed above. DS, could you specify what topic restrictions you have imposed on you right now? It would be better to have clarity before anything bad happens. --regentspark (comment) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think DS's failings here have been down to over-enthusiasm more than anything. I'd like to see a productive editor back contributing, and I would support an unblock based on Cyberpower678's proposed conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Overenthusiasm? "Productive editor"? We are talking about a person who managed to rack up some thirty separate blocks for disruptive editing and personal attacks in the course of six years (not counting those for socking), and the only person I can remember who managed to get himself topic-banned for disruptive editing in three seperate arbcom-sanctioned areas (climate change, India/Pakistan, and Eastern Europe). We are talking about a person who managed to talk himself out of long-term blocks with promises of good behaviour a full 12 times, and ended up re-blocked or re-sanctioned within a month or two on ten out of those twelve occasions. The last time round at AE, there was a clear consensus that a full indef block (not merely a one-year block, as mistakenly claimed above) was necessary, and I have not seen DS fulfil even the minimum condition of a "standard offer" unblock: provide a clear, realistic and plausible proposal about how he's planning to be acting differently in the future. Plausible and realistic, that is, in view of the fact of the dozens of failed second chances and last chances he's had previously. Fut.Perf. 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Hmm, well, it is possible that I've missed a few things, but DS can be and has been productive, yes. My picture of DS is of someone who does mean well but who tends to overreact (and yes, sometimes to extremes). Having been forced away for so long, I think this really is going to be seen as a last chance, and I think Cyberpower's conditions are going to provide the best chance of success. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I'm certainly not going to unblock DarknessShines myself. I have no optimism whatsoever for the success of an unblock. But at this point, I'll let it be decided by other admins, which is to say I will neither endorse nor oppose an unblock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyber I'm happy with your options, thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back. ~Awilley (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Good news! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back mate. :) —MBlaze Lightning T 08:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It'll be grand, I know how to ignore ejits now ----

Copyright question

You flagged my edit to Holodomor as a copyright violation. Can you explain how a link is a copyright violation? The links, as shown to the world is not copyrighted since links are public domain. The rest was written in my own words and refers to academic opinions published behind the link. This is the correct way to cite from a a reliable source. I'd like to restore the edit ASAP since there's nothing objectionable in it, and no reason to remove it. Thanks, Santamoly (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Santamoly:, read WP:LINKVIO linking to a full pdf of a copyrighted book is a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you've gone past the definition in this case. Otherwise all academic sources would be unusable, which would bring academic sources to the end of their life. In this instance, the source quoted is published by the University of Melbourne Press, and the world is free to refer to it. WP:LINKVIO itself says:"It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material. . ." I don't see any support for your position therein. So I'm curious why you would come to the conclusion that academic sources which publish cannot be linked (or even mentioned)? Santamoly (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
"However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." A scanned copy converted to .pdf of a book which is still under copyright is obviously an infringement. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Saying that it's "violation of the creator's copyright" is entirely your interpretation. But actually it's not an infringement because it's a "peer-reviewed" research project published by the University of Melbourne with the agreement of the author. It appears that you're unfamiliar with academic publishing, so you should respect how the academic world operates rather than making up your own interpretation of the "rules". I intend to restore the edit, and it would be nice if, in future, you would respect the work of the academics concerned. If you insist on being difficult in this respect, I can change the cite slightly, which should be the end of it. Let me know your preference. Santamoly (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Where in that pdf does Wheatcroft & Davis give permission for his book to be scanned and uploaded? The edit was already partially restored and cited correctly, if you link to the copyvio again I will revert it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I posted the issue to the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page, and the response there indicates that this is not a big deal. For one thing, the pdf file is not the entire work, only an excerpt (20 pages out of 260+ pages) to assist researchers to ascertain the nature of the content. Thus it qualifies as "fair use". Also the respondent on the Copyright page says it appears that the uploader and the author are the same. This implies permission. Therefore, I would like to restore the edit to assist other editors in improving the article.Santamoly (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Not seeing where it says who the uploader is, but best to ask an expert on this, so @Moonriddengirl: or @Diannaa: Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is the policy page: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. The contact information for the website shows the name Stephen Wheatcroft, who is one of the editors of the photocopied book. Since he is only one of the editors I would not link to that pdf. It would however be acceptable to use the book as a citation, thus: Davies, Robert; Harrison, Mark; Wheatcroft, S. G, eds. (1994). The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45770-5.  You would need a page number; I was unable to find the content that backed up the statement you added to the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)