Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:00, 10 November 2017

29 November Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Patriot prayer

Just wanted to point out that CW Gilmore was topic banned from PP, and that your refusal to reach consensus there seems more disruptive than anything Gilmore was doing, please be civil and discuss things rather that just threatening to edit war. (to any admins reading this I am opposed to any sanctions on Darkness Shines at this time) Tornado chaser (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am discussing, in fact I am the only person doing so, everyone else is just saying IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to prevent the addition of cited content or the removal of a source which consensus says needs attribution, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

@MSGJ: Are you taking the fucking piss? What fucking edit war? two reverts in two days ain't an edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

23:29, 8 November 2017 My only revert in a 24 hour period, I opened a discussion on the talk page, and have not restored the content. I have patiently been waiting for a policy based reason for why it was removed, and have been asking for such. There has been no editwarring on my part at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You tried to add this content in October but were reverted. You have tried to add it twice more in the last couple of days. I call that edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is better to file an unblock request in this case.Jionakeli (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:MSGJ User:Neutrality states here that there must be 4 reverts within a 24 hour period. Your definition (adding material 3 times in a couple days) does not meet this same standard. In this edit by you you decline to block an editor for breaching 3RR. I do not understand your inconsistency. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)No it is not, removal of cited content without cause is editwarring, asking for a reason as to why it was removed and then restoring it is common sense, otherwise nothing would ever be added due to stonewalling. 3RR is pretty clear, no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. I did one after extensive discussion, or stonewalling depending how you view such things and reverted with a concise edit summary based on the discussion. Given I have not violated 3RR, and my 9 October rv you mention was over a month ago you have no reason whatsoever to block me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

One revert in 24 hours, after extensive talk page discussion is not editwarring by any stretch of the imagination. I restored cited content, content over which I asked repeatedly on the talk page for a reason within policy as to why it was removed. No reason within policy was given, so I restored the content. A single revert it 24hrs is not a blockable offense. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The policy you're looking for is WP:CONSENSUS. Also, per WP:EW, it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2017 (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.

• @SarekOfVulcan and Sarek:, from WP:CON "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" which is what I did, I have not editwarred, I followed the fucking policy you are using as a reason to keep me blocked, that's bullshite. This is a crap block which needs to be lifted. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Then post another unblock request, I won't be offended by another opinion -- I could be wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Also from "WP:EW Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action." Another editor did rest restore it, I did everything within policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

=One revert in 24 hours, after extensive talk page discussion is not editwarring by any stretch of the imagination. I restored cited content, content over which I asked repeatedly on the talk page for a reason within policy as to why it was removed. No reason within policy was given, so I restored the content. A single revert it 24hrs is not a blockable offense. Also see my comments at 15.26 and 15.23 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I started this review with a feeling I wanted to unblock, since DS has only edited the article three times and one of them was a month ago, but after studying this talkpage section I changed my mind. DS's argument is pretty formalistic, and basically repeats over and over that the removal of his "reliably cited content" is not policy-based. This ignores the fact that the reliably cited content is an opinion piece. DS should have awaited more discussion before pushing it back in twice. In my world, excluding a highly opinionated opinion piece isn't against policy, but is something that needs nuanced discussion. I say "highly opinionated" from the viewpoint of someone who knows little of UK politics, and has no dog in this fight — purely from reading the piece itself. Giving more time for more people to comment would have been good, as well as for DS to provide more arguments and reasons of his own on the talkpage, rather than mechanically insisting on "a reason within policy" for excluding the quote. IMO it's a little misleading to refer to that insistence as "extensive talkpage discussion", as in the unblock request (twice now). I'm like Sarek, I might not have blocked in the first place, but I won't unblock. I too won't be offended by another opinion. (BTW obviously the block has nothing to do with the three-revert-rule or with any 24 hours, and I think DS knows that.) Bishonen | talk 18:50, 9 November 2017 (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.

• I came to this through an unrelated discussion, and I posted as much on ANEW, but for the benefit of the reviewing admin, from what I can tell, DS has only ever made these three edits to this article, while the other user has been brought to ANEW over it before and been formally warned, and by my count, has reverted or been reverted by four editors and helped get the page protected for a week before DS ever made an edit. In case it's not obvious, I have some misgivings about blocking DS for "breaking" the "no three reverts in 30 days" "rule", and for taking a user to ANEW who by all accounts just left there over a separate edits war with separate users on the same article. GMG 15:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Second that. If this block can be lifted as soon as, we can get back to shouting at each other building an encyclopaedia. — fortunavelut luna 15:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am involved with respect to DS, but this is not a block I would have placed. An argument that DS was edit-warring can be made. BUT contentious areas of Misplaced Pages see far worse behavior on a daily basis, and much of this goes unblocked. MSJG, only a couple of days ago you blocked an editor for four reverts, but didn't block his opponent, who had made three in much less than 24 hours. Blocks for behavior that do not violate a bright-line rule should only be placed for very good reason. Vanamonde (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Third. I seriously question the judgment used in placing this block and the one declining the unblock. Nihlus 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fourth. This definitely does not fit the definition of edit warring and it is disappointing that we have admins who think it does. (I consider myself involved with DS so won't accept the unblock request - tempting though the idea is!). --regentspark (comment) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

From WP:EW: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions....An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable....The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Should have said admin not admins above. I didn't mean to include you in my "disappointment" list SoV. But, do note that while you are right about the definition thing in a purely bureaucratic sense you aren't necessarily correct in what the definition is trying to intend. A single additional revert after the expiration of 24 hours, accompanied by talk page discussion, supported by another editor, doesn't fit the definition. If we stick to the letter of the definition, almost anything can be an edit war which, one hopes, is not the intention. Oct 8, Nov 7, Nov 8 - the sum total of the edits - quote me as much policy as you like but I have a really hard time seeing this as edit warring.

I did look at the discussion when reviewing the block, and I couldn't see that anything resembling consensus had been reached before the edit was reinstated. I couldn't even really tell who was supporting what there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're all well aware. Most of us are also well aware that blocks for established editors who have not broken the bright line are comparatively rare and usually only done where the are extenuating circumstances such as a exceptionally long term slow motion editor warring, or edit warring across articles that doesn't technically breach 3RR on any one of them. For the record, quoting policy to the type of group we have gathered here currently comes off a touch... flippant. GMG 18:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It was in direct response to "does not fit the definition of edit warring and it is disappointing that we have admins who think it does". Would I have blocked in the first place? Probably not. Have I seen an unblock request that convinces me the block should be lifted? Not yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well I share in their disappointment. I would very much like to find a way to avoid opening a review at AN for God and everybody, but it is looking increasingly likely that that isn't going to be a viable option. GMG 18:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ, Bishonen, and SarekOfVulcan: Can you explain what this block is preventing? Nihlus 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just going to be left to run out I guess. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Perhaps it's preventing behaviour like that detailed in this ANI thread. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: If that is the case, then they should unambiguously state that. The unblocks should be considered based on the merits of the block and not for tangential reasons that are outside the scope of the block itself (especially when the blocks are doing nothing to prevent anything - WP:NOPUNISH). Nihlus 20:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Read the thread. It details edit warring behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Why are you implying that I haven't read it? I did and my comment still stands. Nihlus 20:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: The block is for edit warring. The thread discusses edit warring (among other things). You appeared to believe that the thread was unrelated to edit warring - is this a comprehension issue? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Pete get off my talk page, a dispute i have with you at another article has no bwaring on this, other than you being happy about my being blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Now you are implying that I have a comprehension issue. I'm going to remind you once about WP:NPA. Please follow it; I will make no further comments about your disruption here or your opinions posted elsewhere. @MSGJ, Bishonen, and SarekOfVulcan: Please provide the information I am requesting per WP:ADMINACCT. Thanks. Nihlus 20:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just passing by--hey DS, how are you? I'm sorry to see you blocked. Since we're all weighing in I suppose I can too...Nihlus, you're not really in a position to request things, though DS may be. Peter, kindly butt out; if you already are in arguments with this editor you're the last person who should show up here.

  I haven't read everything here too attentively, but I read some of it. Lest there be any doubt about this, "edit warring" and "3RR" are very different, and as a sidenote ANEW should not focus exclusively on 3R violations. Edit warring is about an attitude, a behavior; that is what Bishonen is talking about in her extensive comments. Administrator Martin, above, is taken to task for apparently blocking one party in an edit war but not another--that also is perfectly possible and it depends on the circumstances. Context matters. DS, the block is over tomorrow, unless the next admin feels otherwise (I don't want to get more involved than I already am with these two editors--cause that Gilmore person is on the other side, no?); have a pint (have one on me, I made so much money on Brian Krzanich!), and I'll see you on the other side. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Nowhere does it say other editors are not permitted to question something because they so happen to not be on the receiving end of said action. Additionally, this is a 48 hour block and is over in about 36 hours, so it's over on Saturday. Nihlus 21:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus, I think this one's done. I don't see that anyone here has unequivocally endorsed the block, I think the block originally could have included something about disruptive editing (since that's what the responses seem to get at, and seems to be part of the original inspiration), I don't think the first response was appropriately substantive, but I think this has probably seen enough daylight at this point to call it a day. I don't see very many overriding it at this point, and it's probably time best spent elsewhere. GMG 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Eh, no. I asked a question and per policy expect a response. Nihlus 22:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Adminacct gets a mention above. May as well post the key part of it: ... editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Nihlus, with respect I think the admins you've mentioned have "promptly and civilly" responded to queries on this page, particularly Bishonen and SarekOfVulcan. I note you disagree with their responses, which is fine, and falls within the "editors are free to question or criticize" part; but the fact of your disagreement doesn't inherently mean this particular policy has been breached. Mildly, the policy also doesn't obligate an endless series of responses.

I suppose that's a longwinded way of agreeing with GreenMeansGo - the unblock request has been repeatedly declined, legitimate questions have been asked and answered, and I reckon there's not much more to be said. But as a statement of the obvious, if do feel these unblock declines are an abuse of admin tools, there's a set of next steps for your consideration here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: They actually haven't commented since I have asked them to, so I am not sure what page you are reading. It's a normal case of admin does something questionable, someone questions it, other users rush in to defend them saying that you shouldn't be asking questions and that you should take it to Arbcom if you want to complain (completely ignoring WP:ADMINACCT in the process). If it's an admin commenting, they will be sure to say, "I probably wouldn't have blocked, but I won't unblock" and continue the trend of decision-like non-decision. Sorry, but I expect administrators to adhere to guidelines, especially one as simple as that. These three didn't. However, I'm not going to drag it on, and this behavior will continue in the future again and again and admins will ignore scrutiny again and again. Life goes on. Nihlus 02:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Mildly, it doesn't matter if they explained their actions before your comment or after it; what matters is they explained them. I also disagree that anyone is seeking to avoid scrutiny. But in the spirit of conciliation, thanks for sticking up for an editor affected by a possibly too-tough block, and thanks for taking the time to ask questions and keep people on their toes. It's not always appreciated, as this thread shows. But good on you for doing it anyway. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocking admin here, just back online and reviewing comments above. Will respond shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

To expand on my blocking rationale and partially respond to comments above. I agree that in isolation (looking only at the last few days and at this article) that this block could be seen as inappropriately harsh. But I invite editors to consider the wider picture. Over the past few weeks Darkness Shines has been emboiled in disputes which have led to edit warring on several articles (I am aware of Patriot Prayer, Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and Pacific War through reports at 3RR). I recognise an enthusiastic editor with strong convictions who is getting frustrated at being reverted on multiple articles, and is not always reacting in the best way to this frustration. I am concerned that DS is trying to use WP:AN3 to get his opponents in disputes blocked. They are careful not to violate 3RR but that is not enough. Anyone reporting an editor at AN3 should expect their own editing behaviour to be closely scrutinised too. It takes at least two editors to edit war, and from the disputes I have looked into, DS has contributed to those edit wars to some extent. The other party (Garageland66) also received a block and I was not comfortable in this instance to block one side and not the other, when both were at fault.

DS refers above to "extensive talk page discussion". The first sentence at Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#not acceptable to add Jacobson while excluding the Jewish Socialists Group (which I reviewed before deciding to block) contains "As such I will be restoring it." This is not an attempt at discussion, collaboration or compromise. It is simply a statement that they intend to continue edit warring.

I would like very much to lift the block but I am not seeing any signs that DS will change their approach once unblocked. A simple undertaking not to restore disputed content in an article without consensus on the talk page, would be sufficient for me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dude I had not, and were giving the ones removing the content plenty of time to explain why they removed it, hence my continued asking them for a reason within policy as to why it was removed. I got stonewalled, consensus is decided by policy based reasoning not a head count, and two fellows saying 'Just one person's highly subjective view.' about a source does not cut the mustard. Jacobson and the NYT are obviously RS and the content is only being removed on IDONTLIKE grounds. I wasn't going to add it back, I was going to go for an RFC, I always do. BTW Pacific War, one guy reverts four others, and you think I'm editwarring? That guy followed me there to pick a fight, same fella block shopping on yer talk page funnily enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A: I did provide a policy based objection. B. I never said anything about highly subjective views C. Your last post not only said (explicitly) you were going restore it., but the edit summery said "Conversation over". So how was this not to be seen as saying you had decided the conversation was over you you were going to reinstate the contested material (and would continue to do so)? When did you say you were going to RFC it? I was not going to reply to you again, but you have made false accusations against me, and that is unacceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about garage 're point 1, you never gave a policy basec reason, you said it violates NPOV to mention Labour and not the Tories at 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC), like I said then, if you feel something is missing then add it. It is not a reason to remove cited content. Why would I say I'm going for an RFC? All anyone need do is look at my contributions, I start RFC's all the time. So no, I have made no false allegations at all, but I will be clearer in future. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I will not revert the content on the article again, can you unblock me please Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)