Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness Shines

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both parties have agreed to mediation which can be found here. This should be a constructive beginning for two good content contributors. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated ban vio[edit]

There have been repeated interaction ban violations by Darkness Shines... A block was issued on one (which was removed when he convinced the blocking admin that he wont do it again). I have clarified this with the same administrator (Salvio giuliano) so that I'm not taken as wasting community's time or initiating an interaction through the report. Salvio has said it is a clear ban violation but I've to report it here for further action as he's not available. There have been clear massive taggings on my contributions at other articles too. Tagging the whole article for improvement is one thing, but these were specific tags on my additions repeatedly. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I didn't know then if they were violations and ignored them, but now since I've clarified them, these should be reverted as ban violation (or I should be allowed to revert such vios if they are declared as such). The current one I reported is here: [7]. There was also an intentional overwrite of full article [8] and then a self revert... there've been too many self reverts recently... I ignored them as it can happen when rollback is mistakenly clicked or one doesn't know whose contribution it was, but this one was deliberate overwrite of full article for whatever reason. Please refer to the clarification discussion here which I had with Salvio for the context. Can some one please drop the ANI notice too as I don't want to violate IBAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified. Dru of Id (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • currenly on my mobile there is nothing in the iban which says adding tags was. It allowed. I do not think it a violation. Will comment further when I get home Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was DS blocked for this at all? Or, if I may be so bold, DS, why the fuck would you want to do stuff like that? Were you drunk? Never mind, I don't want to know. Salvo, you seem to have been appointed as the arbitrator here. If you can get those two, and the associates, away from here, there's a barnstar in it for you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Salvio said he's too busy to do anything about it now.--Atlan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No block was issued for the said edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Drmies, except... Why is TopGun editing so many articles Darkness Shines has started in the last week (I believe all of the examples above)? Surely, if adding {{cn}} tags is an interaction ban violation, then finding multiple articles created by the other editor and editing them in a way designed to annoy them is one too? Perhaps it's time to block both indefinitely (well, that's me, I suppose others might want to be lenient and start with 1 week or 1 month) as "far too focused on scoring points against the other and getting away with it"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked for a clarification previously at ANI... and I was told, IBAN didn't mean first come first serve and we could edit as long as we didn't interact. I made sure of not interacting. Some of the articles were either mutual, one got a history merge and another was related to articles I was working on. Salvio has acknowledged that I was not hounding. I'm minding my own business. But I didn't even report those tags for so long till I clarified this with Salvio today on another one of those. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually User:Mar4d is looking for trouble big time with DS. See the history of the articles started by DS: 1 and 2. It is quite annoying as Mar4d has i. e. edit warred this unreliable blog-alike source into the infobox which is run by an involved party which refers to one side as "freedom fighters". Any attempts explaining to him that an impartial source is needed have brought no result so far. Can someone please provide his/her input on the validity to use that source for the infobox? JCAla (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's that related here? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Home now, I will point out that if TG did not know that adding a RS tag was a violation then how would I? He just wrote above that this was just clarified. Quite simply That is all I have to say. BTW Drmies yes I was quite quite drunk and had been for about a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's just great, and you're really helping your cause. I hope you know what to do next time. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)x2 If I may, WP:IBAN states that undoing the other editor's edits is violating the Interaction Ban. Adding to them is not. This technically is not an interaction ban violation although I am curious why DS was editing while being drunk like that. However, bringing up this thread is an interaction ban violation on TopGun's part.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,422,448) 19:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing this thread up is not a vio... reports of violations and clarifications are not violations. I was recently told to self revert a text which was deleted by DS, added by another editor and then again reverted by a third... that was not as of his edits but an addition of another editor deleted by a third. I was told it was not a technical violation but a violation in the spirit of the ban and blocks will be issued for such. This is a similar case. And I brought this thread up after administrative advise. If these edits are a violation, they should be reverted or I'll assume I can make similar ones in future. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor X is not permitted to:
    • edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
    • reply to editor Y in discussions;
    • make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
    • undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).
    But if administrators told you that this was OK, then I am going to leave it at that.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,438,475) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they did. [9]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyberpower678, you need to read a bit further. There are exceptions to the ban and this report, requests for clarification, etc. all fall under those exceptions. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I completely missed that section, Facepalm Facepalm. I am going to seclude myself into a dark corner and feel ashamed of myself for making myself look like an idiot.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,440,246) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yes, drink more so I pass out, then I will be unable to make such a fool of myself Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose a total interaction ban between these two. If one of them edits an article, the other MAY NOT edit the article, the talk page or bring up the article anywhere on Wikipedia. They may not discuss each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Should they have concerns about an article or about the other editor, they may post a request to a neutral admin, detailing their concerns. ONLY at the request of that admin may they add to their initial request. They obviously can't stop it on their own, so this makes it EXTREMELY difficult for them to edit WP at all. Too bad for them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a ridiculous proposal... not only will it create complications where we're both editing but also be against the rules of an interaction ban. If some one violates a ban he should be blocked. I've initiated no interactions. I'm in my full right to report a violation... this will prevent me from making valid contributions because of the edits he is responsible for. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Or else we're going to see this again and again. I had HOPED that the original 1RR would have sent a message to leave each others' articles alone. I had hoped that the IBAN would have helped enforce that message. Clearly, TG is poking DS, and then coming to ANI when it finally happens. DS is just as wrong in their own actions. That is NOT how this community works. Either it's IBAN + no common articles or block them both indefinitely - this puerile bullshit cannot continue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What poking? Diffs? I've not participated in this. It is him who tags and reverts around my contributions. Btw, have you even read the report? I came here because an admin told me to do so. Is there anything other than entrapment you guys know of? If this happens, wikipedia will soon be left with only the Arbcom and the vandals. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing ANY article created by someone you're in an interaction ban with is as unwise as walking into a biker rally yelling "I'm a narc!". Doing so is simply asking for trouble, and since you don't seem to want to volunteer to be intelligent about this, it's time to enforce it. Pushing the boundaries of the envelope is a stupid way to work, and you do it with every ban or restriction that becomes imposed on you: you're now becoming a detriment to the project due to the amount of policing and new restrictions we have to continually review (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if these were copyvios or whether that comes in the exemptions of IBAN (I didn't see any), but this edit directly removed content (ref) which I modified in the article.. unprovoked & uninvited. [10]. So I'm not the one interacting or poking. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is stupid, I did not even look at the article history, I looked at the contributions of a new user[11] as it struck me as a little strange that his first edits were to create an article, given the amount of socks pervading this topic that is hardly a surprise. And he popped up on my radar along with the article with this edit[12] And they were most certainly copyright violations Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had enough. Every few days one of this pair is dragging the other to a noticeboard for violating some rule or restriction, usually immediately after they've made the same violation, and the petty point-scoring is as irritating as it is mature. I completely agree with Floq's comment—can anybody give me one good reason why these two shouldn't just be blocked until they grow up and realise that Wikipedia is not a battleground? Because I'm seriously considering it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? I have brought two complaints here to the best that I remember, and I withdrew one of them. I am not dragging anyone here nor am I point scoring, I removed a copyviolation. Just fucking block me and be done with it, I have done fuck all wrong. I added a rs tag to a primary source and it got brought here, that was my huge crime I remove a copyvio and it gets brought up here. FFS read what he wrote I don't know if these were copyvios he should have bloody checked instead of whinging here. I am as sick of this shit as you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the archives, I made one single complaint which I withdrew as a show of good faith. The other posting I made regarding this IBAN was a request for clarification[13] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the heck are my edits being modified or messed on with when I'm not doing the same. This definitely needed reporting. The talkpage notification I got for IBAN does not say that I could tag the contributions or revert copyvios as exemption (even this wasn't my contribution I formatted the references and they got blanked). I'm an established editor. You have failed to maintain the IBAN and instead blame me for bringing the report here that too when one of you says 'its a violation go to ANI'! And then proposing article bans... If my contributions weren't hounded in the first place We'd never have most of those mutual articles. Yet my proposal was rejected as retaliatory without checking out the diffs. Wikipedia will be shooting itself in the foot if the community agrees to escalate this ban when the administrators have failed to maintain it in the first place and neglected the violations. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, this is straight from the human rights watch report[14]

    Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security

forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against civilians by assaulting residents and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community. This is the content I remove

Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community

This is a blatant copyvio, how the hell can I get reported for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to block both User:TopGun and User:Darkness Shines at least 6 months[edit]

Well this certainly isn't going to pass.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,805,560) 21:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems that based on the community opinions, that community imposed 1RR and IBAN is not working because although minor improvements through these restrictions have been observed, these two parties are still dragging wikipedia down into their battlefield. I am hereby proposing, as a neutral editor, that in order for things to calm down, that a block of at least 6 months be placed on both editors in hope that by then they will have calmed down.

Voters have 3 options. Support, Support Indefinite, Oppose.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,557,263) 15:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
Support Indefinite[edit]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: hiding admin failure to maintain the IBAN and negligence on not blocking on IBAN vios under the carpet, disrupting constructive contributions and seems to be the pretty much easy solution for you guys since you cant handle it yourself even though you impose it. Blocks should be made for the violators. There's nothing wrong with reporting a violation. And ridiculous to have one admin send you to ANI to report a vio and another one block you for the same. [16] --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: In my opinion, DS is more aggressive about pushing his POV than is TopGun and this would be unfair. However, regardless of who is at fault here, there is a lot of useful content, particularly on Pakistan and Bangladesh - both undercovered areas on wikipedia, being added by both of them. My suggestion is that we issue a topic ban on Pakistan related articles to DS and a topic ban on India and Bangladesh related articles to TopGun. Mar4d and JCAIa are around to help ensure honesty in the other work they do. Hopefully, wikipedia wins! --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: I think TopGun can be reasonable when he wants to be. I'm not so sure about DarknessShines. Either way, both have undeniably created good content on some articles and I think this remedy would be too harsh. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Ridiculous proposal. I think it is the admins' job to enforce the IBAN and put sanctions when things go wrong. But blocking for six months would be a loss of productivity for Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - these users work just fine when the other isn't around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]

Alternative topic ban proposal (9/4)[edit]

TopGun is topic banned from India and Bangladesh related articles and DarknessShines from Pakistan related articles. I believe that this is the better solution for wikipedia and that this will effectively separate the two editors, who are both adding useful content. --regentspark (comment) 16:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. This should effectively separate these two. I have nothing much to add, rgpk has covered most of what I wanted to state; both are useful editors otherwise, so this topic ban should work out well. Lynch7 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Part of the reason for these users edit-warring with each other is presence on common pastures. Far too much time is given in editting these conflict issues articles which could definitely be spent in improving the national WikiProject articles instead. Their edits in overlap area between countries are accompanied by conflict with a variety of users on a number of issues, hence their productivity is low too. I'd much rather see Top Gun editting Pakistan related articles which have no chance of him getting into edit wars then be banned outright or even blocked for multi-months. Similarly, I'd really be happy to see DS volunteer to improve a variety of WikiProject India articles too. AshLin (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: I think this will be more effective than the current interaction ban which doesn't seem to work. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: The justification given in the proposal is that of an interaction ban as it does not show an disruption on my part on those topic areas... how is that relevant to a topic ban. To keep two users separate you have to enforce a topic ban properly rather than putting on a topic ban just to keep them away even though the disruption is not due to the topic areas rather due to violations of interaction ban. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No we don't have to "enforce a topic ban properly" -- editors need to be mature and sufficiently self-aware to avoid conflict. The alternative suggested above -- blocking both editors, would also work quite well for the perspective of the community. Nobody Ent 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is easier for the community to block both editors (or in this case get a topic ban on both while the issues are not by my work on topics) if one keeps on violating the interaction ban (as per reports, blocks issued and as pointed out by admins) which was placed in the first place due to the hounding of the same. Wikipedia will be shooting itself in the foot. Not that it would matter anymore after this action, but after acknowledging that DS has been acting more aggressive in a comment above, the proposer is proposing a ban of two topics on me and one on him. Anyway when all this can happen for making a report that an admin tells you to make because he feels a user violated IBAN, anything can happen around here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support While either or both editors may be frequently correct on content, too much of an emphasis on winning -- with too frequent trips to dispute resolution boards -- than achieving consensus through discussion and compromise. Nobody Ent 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per AshLin. They've got to be kept apart -- right apart -- because this spectacle makes it impossible for less embattled editors to contribute in these areas. --Stfg (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know AshLin is a part of these disputes? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Several people are involved in these disputes to varying degrees, but this is not about personalities, it's about protecting WP from the effect of these battles. All I believe is that the proposed topic ban is the minimum necessary first step, for the reasons already stated. Then we'd have a chance to see who is capable of behaving themselves and who isn't. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without any diffs of my disruption in the topics especially after this interaction ban. And then the involved parties !vote in to get past their content disputes, gets so easy. The first step would be to actually block me or DS if IBAN is violated. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Regentspark, this is a great idea. And let's keep the interaction ban. And maybe we can add an ANI ban. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support with fireworks, cake and many celebratory clowns. I'm fed up of this, it's hard to be involved with WP without being forced to read about these two weekly. I know many will disagree, but it seems clear to me that TopGun is here only to further Pakistani national sentiment. The community seems willing to tolerate that, but it causes problems when he insists on bringing that chip on his shoulder to topics relating to India and Bangladesh. This topic ban will stop all that. I can't comment on DS because I'm not particularly familiar with him. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs for your vague statement where I was POV pushing and not just giving my own entitled opion with references? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, with the interpretation that DS should not edit Bangladesh-related articles either (since Bangladesh was once East Pakistan). This proposal is the most practical option, even though TG has been much more observant of existing 1RR and interaction restrictions. It should be easy for TG to appeal this topic ban at some later date, since he does not have a comparable history of disruption in the India-Bangladesh topic area as DS does in the Pakistan field. Regarding AshLin's "rape" article, if it is so obviously "outrageous" and hateful, it should have been deleted already. Shrigley (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been so deleted and not by me or by my insistence. BTW I had repaired part of the defects of the previous version, but that too was unacceptable as it had been created by a sock. DS has recreated the stub in a more neutral avatar. AshLin (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion was only because it was a sock's creation.. It has been restored in my user space as others had contributions to it and the article itself was not bad. Nothing to do with neutrality, just for information, not that I have to do anything with the content: vide my response to your comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support: I was fencesitting, but TG's battleground mindset as displayed here tilted the balance. It is, for instance, quite possible for AshLin to be involved in these disputes and yet have editors agree with AshLin's POV, and there is nothing in policy or guideline requiring that Basalisk provide evidence to justify his position here. Ravenswing 01:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How is pointing out an involvement synonymous to rejecting the comment or battling? And I asked for evidence when accusations were made; WP:NPA is the most common policy cited for that I suppose. But hey, I shouldn't be questioning my accusers. I assume from your comment above you never checked my editing and are basing your comment from the discussion here. I will ofcourse point it out when a user has a content dispute and supports a topic ban to get past it. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: In order? Alright, if you insist.

    1) I'll answer your question with a question: how is it relevant? I do not fall into the fallacy that a good argument is somehow invalidated if you can allege bias on the part of the one making it.

    2) You have been editing Wikipedia for long enough to recognize that complaints about your conduct aren't, by definition, NPA violations. If you don't, it's high time you did.

    3) This section of this ANI complaint is not a gang of accusers, but the responses of the community towards accusations; as such, we sure as hell do not have to prove to you that we are looking at the evidence at which we're claiming to look before registering our opinions. We are not opponents that you need to defeat, and acting as if we are - to the point of rebutting several commenters - is part and parcel of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

    4) One would think someone under threat of topic and interaction bans for battleground behavior and edit warring would think twice about assuming anything about anyone. My Support neither stated nor inferred that I hadn't looked over your record myself, and one could very easily assume that I meant exactly what I said - that it was your conduct here which tipped my opinion over toward supporting a ban. Ravenswing 03:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely why I said, it was not to invalidate the argument but to point out the background so you judge on that (which is reasonable in my opinion). Complaints about my editing might not be npa vios but unfounded ones are. Right at this venue I was rebutted by an administrator for giving opinion and not providing diffs (and I did then)... ironically this is the third instance (thread opening being the first) since this thread started that I'm being charged for following admin advice or acting in their accord. You got the last one right. But these are not all my contributions you know. For a back ground check on the dispute on other hand, maybe you can see the diffs I provided here, even though it was not even read then. I find it quite telling that people will call diffs / hard-evidence (with context) of stuff done independently by a user a retaliatory proposal and vague statements of opinion as consensus. I guess I've made my point abundantly clear so I'll stop. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose mine: I have substantial contributions to India-Pakistan conflict articles... these issues are not because of these topics rather because the IBAN wasn't being enforced properly. If the IBAN is strictly enforced, this can be dealt with. None of my contributions in India or Bangladesh related topics have been violations of IBAN or with any other issues as such... this with the only aim being that of separating us will be unfounded. The IBAN is enough to keep me from not interacting with DS on any topic at all. But I doubt it is for him so I'll support the ban on his side as I'm not the only user he battles with on Pakistan related topics (others have also asked for his topic ban). I provided a long list of diffs of hounding before the IBAN proposal too, they should be counted. Also refer to [17] and Salvio's comment below. [18] --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement of "substantial contributions" is very controversial and includes such biased, badly referenced and outrageously worded hate articles such as Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir which are bound to create flame wars and edit wars. This editor is better off editting Pakistan related articles only. AshLin (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not my contribution, have you even checked the edit history? I only formatted the references! And just because you disagree with my opinions or have content disputes doesn't justify a topic ban. I think the bad faith accusation on content I never added is enough to put it upright that getting opposing editors topic bans is not the way to get past content disputes. And Darkness Shines's IBAN violations do not imply that I can not edit India and Bangladesh related articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TopGun, you can continue to work on Pakistan articles but not on things that overlap with India or Bangladesh (like the Kashmir abuses article). You are a valuable contributor to Wikiproject Pakistan, an underserved area, and I'd hate to see you kicked out of here. But, let's see what the community says.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
    The "not" for contributing to these areas has not been justified in the proposal atleast for me. Simply to separate me from DS without having any evidence of my disruption in these topics is not understandable. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I am an anon user who previously had an "encounter" with Topgun on the 1971 War page, available to admins, et al, here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Content_removal
    Rather than simply applying a one size fits all approach to both Topgun and Darkness Shines, perhaps it might be worthwhile if a single neutral admin invests just a little bit more time to investigate a single edit war between DS and TG to understand the pathology of the conflict in detail--perhaps even the edit war on the 1971 indo-pakistani conflict. The truth isn't always somewhere in between. Based on my own interactions (highly negative) with TG, I think a close investigation will help overstretched admins better understand what exactly is happening and why DS appears so ardent and combative (unfairly, in my opinion) in the eyes of some of the commenters here. I don't have anything else to add but that. And as you can see from my significant comment history in December, I really have no interest in becoming a permanent contributor here, particularly after my experience on that page. These are just my two cents as someone who really likes the wikipedia project, but has found that the enabling of TG's reflexively creates and almost necessitates "DS's"--however well-intentioned the latter may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - but only in favor of my alternate proposal below, which I think is better. Support if my proposal is ignored. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: See my third proposal below. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
  • It is hardly possible to write articles on any with some reference to the other. For instance, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War could never have been written as it obviously refers to Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DS, there are many hundreds of articles on India and Bangladesh that make no reference to Pakistan whatsoever. But, let's see what the community says. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic ban Darkness Shines, but why TG? I fully support a topic ban on Darkness Shines for Pakistan-related articles. There is a history behind me supporting this. In fact, I've raised the point of topic banning DS from Pakistan articles numerous times. But I cannot quite understand what disruption has TopGun caused in India-Bangladesh articles to get a topic ban there? Mar4d (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Darkness Shines topic ban should also include Afghanistan, so as to prevent further contributions to Taliban/militant movement related articles. Mar4d (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to add that too. On the other side, no one seems to be giving any explaination of what disruption I've caused on India or Bangladesh related topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic ban TG, but why DS?, I could ask re above. DS has been contributing very good content to Afghanistan-related articles (i. e. writing the whole Taliban economy section) whereas TopGun has mainly tried to keep silence about Pakistan's support to the Taliban which led to endless discussions. JCAla (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You support a ban on me because of the mentioned disagreement? I just hope the closer is an experienced editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as you can see, I did not cast any statement, neither under support nor oppose as of yet - you may have noted that I wasn't involved in any of the recent actions (1RR restriction, IBAN, etc.) against you here on ANI. This was exclusively in reaction to what Mar4d wrote above and in what you have now joined. You two are clearly going over the top by mentioning an Afghanistan topic ban. Therefor I said, if any such thing were to be considered in the slightest, you gotta check the contributions history of both user with regards to Afghanistan-related articles. DS so far has made valuable contributions to Afghanistan-related articles such as rewriting the whole Taliban economy section. JCAla (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the header you put on "Topic ban TG, but why DS?" which says it all along with what you said. The interactions are as much in Afghanistan related topics as they are in Bangladesh or India or Pakistan articles. But like I said, IBAN should be enforced... the ban is only as good as the enforcers. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was enforced properly, you'd be blocked right now for filing an SPI on Darkness Shines. JCAla (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be as ridiculous as this. That SPI is not against DS, I only mentioned the sock. I emailed the clerk on his advise... but like Salvios advise of coming here, that brings no good either. I don't give a damn anymore. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JCAla, there is no point of having this topic ban if DS is not prohibited from editing Afghanistan/Taliban articles. If DS will continue to edit the Taliban article, then so will TopGun. Then the actual question would be, is this topic ban even practical? Mar4d (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Topic ban Darkness Shines, but why TG? I support an indefinite topic ban on DS and maybe JCala (above) Darknesshines is extremely uncivil even when you try to be civil with him [19] he gets away with abusive language as many users just ignore his abuse several user echoe my sentiment including regentspark about his POV pushing and stalking of TopGun and intentionally interfering with the edits of others example Mar4d wanted to create an article on Human rights abuses in Kashmir Darknesshines attempted to hijack his idea and went on to explain that "The article is not, nor will it be a hit piece for nationalist POV pushers to beat India with" [20] after its creation he was itching for retaliation and created the article [21] which clearly is desperate since barely a paragraph has been written and is a clear retaliatory creation NerosRevenge (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am a little surprised to see that this thread has evolved into proposals to block both TopGun and Darkness Shines and, now, to topic ban them... I have to confess I was the one who suggested TopGun to report Darkness Shines' violation here, because I could not properly investigate it, but thought that a short block was indeed appropriate.

    I have grown somewhat familiar with these two users and I honestly don't know what a good solution to this issue would be; they are both very good editors and they create good content in an underserved topic area, but both have an issue with battleground mentality. The best solution was, in my mind, the interaction ban, but to enforce it against all violations is a rather time-consuming job. The imposition of a topic ban would have the very same problem, I fear: people trying the boundaries of the restriction and, then, the occasional violation would lead to long, drama-filled threads.

    The easy solution would be the imposition of a block on both TopGun and Darkness Shines, but babies thrown out with bathwater spring to mind. I have to admit I don't know what the best way forward is – it probably would lie in just enforcing TopGun and Darkness Shines's interaction ban, but that would take time... To quote one of my university professors, sorry I only came bearing questions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO "babies thrown out with bathwater" isn't the right way to think about this, because it implies that TG and DS are the baby. Really, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and perhaps Afghanistan are the baby -- why does need it be TG and DS who nurse it? Almost certainly, their battles are inhibiting other good editors from giving their efforts, so that however good they may be at researching and writing, the net effect is negative because of the loss of other contributors. In support above, I suggested that we might then see who else can behave themselves and who can't. It was meant to hint that it may very probably not end with these two, though it should start there, because there's other battleground behaviour going on here. FWIW I agree with Mar4d that Afghanistan should be taken into consideration too. I also suggest the IBAN should be strengthened so that they cannot both be editing the same article or talk page, and that any attempt to game that by starting things "to piss off" someone else will be taken a dim view of. --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that those articles are our babies and we should first tink about them. My point is that both editors are improving Wikipedia, when they're not bogged down in one of their fights and, so, the best solution, in my opinion, would be to make sure that they do not get stuck in those fights by preventing them from interacting with each other. Really preventing them, I mean, with swift blocks and whatnot. I'd be really sorry to see them blocked or excessively restricted, because I have seen the good content they can produce. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's something I'll support. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate my comments above, it is pointless to keep brainstorming solutions without properly diagnosing the problem.

Yes, DS's frustration is apparent to all by his occasional unfortunate selection of language. But it needs to be understood that he has reached out to multiple admins multiple times to prevent the abuse of sources on wiki pages. If an article says one thing, but a pov pushing user uses it to say another (or uses obviously pov sources to slant articles), there is a problem. If admins refuse to see this and choose instead to penalize DS on technicalities (i.e. "DS, you discussed TG on another users talk page so you are banned"), any human being will start to get frustrated with the system. That does not justify his choice in language, but his intentions are much, much better. A user's contribution to wikipedia should not be based on his/her quantity of contributions, but quality--let this be the judge of whether the baby is actually being thrown out with the bath water. My strong recommendation is that a single edit war be studied from start to finish (replete with a reviewing of individual sources) so as to understand the origin of the problem. TG has had issues with multiple editors unallied with DS. DS's problems seemed oriented around TG and TG allied users/socks. Just forcing both sides to observe a truce or ejecting them from the UN altogether without taking into account which party is the aggressor is not governance or diplomacy. --IP 98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate to alternative proposal above (2/2)[edit]

As the administrator who oversaw a good portion of this debate before finally giving up, I think the above sanctions are a good start, but don't show the whole picture. I am proposing alternate sanctions which are similar, but different in content as I think they will be fairer and more likely to nip bad behavior.:

  • TopGun cannot edit India-related issues. The only caveat is that we should avoid wikilawyering; if it is obviously non-controversial to a neutral observer and neutral administrator (e.g., reverting vandalism, adding the birthdate for an Indian actor, etc.), then the editor should not be blocked for it. This caveat is to be construed very narrowly.
  • Darkness shines cannot edit any Pakistan-related issues with the same caveats as above for controversial edits.
  • Neither can edit Afghanistan-related issues with the same caveats as above for controversial edits.
  • Neither can edit Bangladesh-related issues with the same caveats as above for controversial edits.
    • Administrators should keep in mind that Bangladesh was once East Pakistan, so TopGun might accidentally make a controversial edit regarding pre-civil war issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - As nominator. Also, one thing I haven't brought up is that I think several other users might benefit from an IBAN. I'm not going to name names, but I did already once in my (failed) request for arbitration. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I'm not an administrator, but I've worked with both editors on DRN. I think both of them can be constructive editors, but any time they are involved in articles where the other is likely to be involved, it dissolves into an edit war where they invariably focus on each other rather than on the edits. A topic ban like the one proposed here would prevent not only the edit warring behaviour, but would also likely prevent them both from being in situations where they are likely to violate the IBAN. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: I appreciate Magog's attempt to make it fair; this proposal is relatively much fairer than the above one (even though I oppose both per my reasons given above), but this does not address the real issue like I said above... it forces the two of us to be separate because admins couldn't issue blocks for IBAN violations. The community (or I'll say the few irritated admins who proposed previous solutions) is taking a short cut throwing user conduct under the carpet and issuing topic bans instead of investigating on diffs and blocking the violating user, I'll make sure that this doesn't become that short cut. If a topic ban is imposed on me without proving any topic disruption or even IBAN vio on my side, I'll open an Arbcom case to reverse this. I'm an established editor, so be assured this is not a short cut. I support blocking on violations rather than issuing bans even when there were no disruptions due to or because of the topic areas rather because of the user conduct. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: See my third proposal below. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third proposal (3/1)[edit]

I think instead of outright banning the editors (despite the ban violation), an editing restriction be placed upon them. For both of them DarknessShines emplace a reverting restriction of 1RR per 24 hours, or†. For both of them place them under a probation (or supervised editing) whereby an administrator should follow the edits of the users, or a combination of both. With the emplacement of one or both of these restrictions this restriction, the previous interaction ban is vacated. This is much more suited as there is an ongoing RfC on one of the pages that are in disrepute. Placing a block or an interaction ban will reverse and go against the progress that we already have on that page. Should there be a violation of this editing restriction, the users will be either emplaced under a 0RR or blocked, based on the administrator's discretion and the severity of the violation. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

†Copyedit per below support and comment sections. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Support: Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support: Although I formalized my own interaction ban, but I think I can support this if DS can start over in good faith and not follow my contributions ever again or create reactionary articles / AFDs / pointy tagging right after reverts, in return I will start assuming good faith (which I did not before due to admitted stalking of my contributions) for DS's editing given that all comments he makes are always on the content only and he shows that he's reasonable (same will be expected of me ofcourse). 1RR is already imposed on me and I have zero 1RR violations as of yet. If an administrator is free enough to stalk my contributions without getting involved, I wouldn't care as far as I get equal scrutiny as I am getting now. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can live with this. I think a topic ban on bringing each other to ANI to cut down on the drama would also be a good idea. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose With the interaction ban removed, they will start fighting again and then there will be nothing to stop them from fighting bringing up yet another WP:ANI discussion. This has gone on long enough.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,827,853) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. With an administrator following their edits, it'll be quite stupid to fight right in front of them. Should there be fighting or a violation of the editing restriction, a block will entail. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the administrator following them will have their hands full and they won't always be online. Monitoring these two would be a full-time job.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,829,576) 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can find an administrator that lives in the same timezone as the two users. If the users live in completely different unadjacent timezones, the same theory applies but with two administrators. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm staying neutral for now.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,831,706) 23:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose with fire and storm: And who is the lucky admin to be tasked with this ... and does that admin really have nothing better to do with his or her time than ride herd onto two editors? In Sftg's sensible phrase, "Really, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and perhaps Afghanistan are the baby -- why does need it be TG and DS who nurse it?" No doubt those articles could survive without their personal input, and no doubt they could find ample work to their hands without risk of conflict that they have handled poorly. Ravenswing 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]

Edit restriction proposal of both User:Darkness Shines and User:TopGun[edit]

Bad idea. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Condition: User:TopGun and User:Darkness Shines are restricted to no more than three edits per day on every article both users have edited on up to this point or will edit in the future.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,829,205) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as proposer.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,829,205) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand the proposal? Do you mean we have but three edits left to any article either of us have ever edited? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant per day.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,830,582) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: with no prejudice to cyberpower; as there is no such editing restriction type. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a proposal that can still be enforced if there is consensus to.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,830,582) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: (and sorry for being funny but so is this), cyberpower should be banned (read stopped otherwise - no offense) from making further suggestions here per WP:SNOW. I edit in so many parts instead of single huge edits and correct typos. Number of edits was never a problem. 1RR is already in place... the point of 3 edits is... I don't even know what. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What the... Why? I am only trying to suggest ways to possible calm down the battle between you two.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,833,157) 00:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it easy, I was just nudging you, because I don't think six months block or 3 edits a day in total will help calm things down as they both don't resolve anything. I couldn't even understand the purpose of 3 edits per day. I edit in like 10 edits if I add a single section. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it that way. It'll force you two to use your allowed edits wisely.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,834,331) 00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as impractical. Even taking the above point about using them wisely, the count of 3 is arbitrary and it's trivially easy to game this. --Stfg (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]

More violations by Darkness Shines[edit]

[24] This is a diff of mine being presented. I'm not sitting here sniping at him and looking for violations. There have been so many that I can't ignore. This is actionable without me adding further opinion. And what the... [25] my addition has been commented out effectively removing it. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The violations have been reverted by by Salvio, refer to discussion on Salvio's talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musings[edit]

After what has happened today on the Rape in Jammu and Kashmir I have had enough. I am sick of the system being gamed, I am sick of the blockshopping, I am sick of it all. Wikipedia is welcome to an editor who will remove reams of academically sourced content as it does not support his POV, but will use letters to the editor as a source to support his POV. Wikipedia is welcome to an editor who will edit war unsourced content into articles on a regular basis. Wikipedia is welcome to someone who thinks a made up word should remain in an article. Wikipedia is welcome to an editor who use WP:OR to push his POV. Wikipedia is welcome to an editor who has no idea what writing in a neutral manner actually entails. I am done with it, I am done with him. I am never editing any articles dealing with the region again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

I've taken this off of the main WP:ANI page. Usually, when things get to be 60k of text, this is done, at least as far as I am aware.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other information[edit]

Please stop making bad faith reports. The second revert is well into second day, with explanation with the two being only in a long time. Stop baiting me. This has been rejected as no violation + stale. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be keeping an eye on this dispute since I've been monitoring the progress of this dispute through DRN, MedCab and RfC. Should this dispute not be fully resolved after the result of the RfC and the closure of this thread, I will continue to monitor the progress of the dispute and if necessary, bring it to the proper forum, if this is alright with the involved parties. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take you as fully neutral. Should your proposal get a consensus (or regardless), I will have no problem if you vouch to keep tabs on my contributions or disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Top_Gun_%26_Darkness_Shines&oldid=1142656738"