Jump to content

User talk:DarkFalls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shark310 (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 11 January 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DarkFalls

Contribs —— Home —— Talk —— Email —— Identity —— To Do —— DYK

Wikimedia Commons —— Meta-Wiki —— Wikipedia —— Wikisource —— Wikiquote —— Wiktionary


 DarkFalls' Talk Page

Welcome to DarkFalls' talk page. Please keep civil and sign your comments.

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

AIV vs AN/I

AIV has been quite slow these days - when you have an IP on a rampage such as the one I reported to AN/I - I did so because AN/I is watched more closely than AIV. Just so you know my reasoning. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is slow does not mean you should report it to the wrong forum. By doing so, you're making the process even more inefficient. AIV in the future please. —Dark 05:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. If there's an urgency where eyes are needed more quickly, i.e. an IP address on a rampage such as this case - if AN/I is going to draw eyes, suppression, and a block more quickly, then AN/I is most certainly the correct avenue. I've been around the block a few times. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Process only works when it is being followed. Blatant vandalism gets reported at AIV. ANI already receives enough irrelevant reports on content disputes as it is. I fail to see how this instance of vandalism merits special treatment. —Dark 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note how there are a handful of reports at AI/V at the moment, all of which were reported before this IP that was issuing personal attacks and threats of violence. Note how that IP is currently blocked while these other reports at AI/V haven't even been touched yet? Just because there's a process for everything doesn't mean that they have to be followed every single time when there's more than one way to skin a cat. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that any further arguing will be fruitless. I've told you that subverting process for no reason is not a great idea. Hopefully you keep that in mind in the future. Have a good day. —Dark 05:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a reason - the IP was threatening to physically harm me, and was going on an attack spree. If you note, I use AI/V when there's not a immediate pressing issue and I could care less when that party is blocked. When they begin to threaten me and are causing an amount of considerable harm to the project, I'll go to IRC/ANI and any other avenue I can to get them blocked as quickly as possible. Realize that not everyone is a newbie and most of us have the best of intentions. Good day, sir. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism

This will have been the third time that a discussion has been held regarding the deletion of the Cultural Marxism article. These 'neutral editors', quite likely sockpuppets themselves, similarly do not have the right to overturn consensus by claiming 'no consensus', especially after an admin has already acted to delete the page beforehand and especially considering the sheer volume of SPAs voting 'keep'. I will start a dispute on the talk page in a bit, but if your strategy is to tire out the editors in this discussion until only SPAs and sockpuppets remain to repeat obvious falsehoods, you might just succeed. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me in what way overturning my closure unilaterally to reflect your understanding of consensus is appropriate. If you're asserting that I am a sockpuppet, then feel free to open a investigation on it. If you are asserting that I am not neutral, please present the necessary evidence. —Dark 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you've closed a discussion in favour of 'keep' despite the already extant consensus on the matter without any coherent reason or justification doesn't bode well for your so-called neutrality, especially considering your attitude towards RGloucester in the course of the discussion. I'll be nominating the article the moment I figure out whether this is the second or just the first time we've been through this rigmarole. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware "no consensus" and "keep" were the same. Clearly you did not read my justification for the close, or HJ Mitchell's for that matter, but that's your prerogative. I'll just warn you right now that re-nominations directly after closure are usually not the wisest of ideas, but at least you're following process this time and I certainly won't stop you from doing so. —Dark 14:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would suggest that reverting this editorial decision to disambiguate, in an attempt to enforce this close, is incompatible with the independence required to use admin powers any further in this matter. This topic has been given to editorial process. Disambiguation is an editorial matter not an administrative one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my attempts to enforce a close constitutes an editorial decision, as opposed to an administrative one. There was no consensus established to form a disambiguation. I viewed the attempt as nothing more than to subvert/bypass the proper process, and responded accordingly. But I have no problems recusing from this topic altogether. Have a good day. —Dark 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As you're an admin editor who now understands the situation somewhat and can muck in a bit, any other cool heads, fresh ideas, and guidance in relation to enwiki policy would be useful, if you feel up to it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been nominated again [1]. Any chance you could overlook this, seems like the same argument again and again. Loganmac (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind I thought you were an admin, carry on. Loganmac (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin. However I have recused myself from all involvement in regards to this matter. —Dark 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls, which discussion you had closed? Why this nom is written as 2nd nomination, asking as I couldn't find the first nomination. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Since it was a merger discussion, it was conducted on the article talk page —Dark 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies :) DarkFalls is one of our finest admins. Thanks also for the close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:FergusM1970

Hello and Happy Holidays,

I see that you implemented the ban on User:FergusM1970, which I support fully. In glancing at a few of the articles he admits editing for pay, I noticed Ventura Film Festival, which was created and significantly edited by User:Filmfann. I am wondering if this account should be blocked, and if examination of the other articles on that list might lead to more sockpuppets. Sock hunting is not my area of expertise (or interest), but I thought that this was worth bringing to your attention. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The account has not been active for 6 months. I suggest posting at WP:ANI or WP:SPI if suspicious activity is detected in the future though. —Dark 03:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Notforlackofeffort

Hi. Your block notice on the user's page is confusing. You closed the discussion at ANI with a consensus of an indefinite block, but your notice makes it sound like the user was site-banned. I think you intended to issue just an indefinite block that the user can appeal in the usual manner. I don't think there was a consensus for a site ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on ANI was for an indefinite block, until such time that the community is satisfied that the editor will be able to contribute in a collegial manner. I did not implement the block out of my own judgement, but on the consensus demonstrated on ANI. In order for the block to be reversed, he will have to demonstrate to the community, with evidence, that he is ready to contribute constructively. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a lack of consensus, when it is very clear that the majority of editors supported a indef block. A block implemented through community consensus is effectively a ban. —Dark 06:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I interpret WP:CBAN, which says: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"." Thus, the user would have to have been indefinitely blocked before a discussion at ANI to review that block. Then, if the review established that there was a consensus to leave the indef in place, the user would have been de facto banned. Sometimes, there is an actual proposal to site-ban an editor, and the community's consensus is to do so. That's not what happened here.
BTW, I'm involved as I argued in favor of sanctions, although I did not vote. As an aside, I also think it's crazy that the user is immediately appealing the ban, but that's another matter and doesn't suprise me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is one method of implementing a CBAN. "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" is the other. While we obviously disagree whether the ANI thread constituted a discussion to site ban, my understanding has always been that an indef block imposed with the will of the community is a CBAN. Whether an indef block was placed prior to the discussion or not is a non-issue. —Dark 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more rebuttal and then I'll leave you alone. Not one person that I can see voted for a site ban, and the language you quote relates, in part, to a proposal to site ban. If you're going to leave it the way it is, you might still consider changing your closure comment to indicate that the consensus was for a site ban instead of indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A community imposed indef block is a site ban. That's the basic reasoning for my close. —Dark 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding the editor's immediate appeal, I think it is rather obvious what the outcome will be. —Dark 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on that, at least. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In retrospect, DarkFalls can't be faulted too much when the closer makes no distinction between a ban and a block either.[3] Maybe a memo should be sent out to all the admins or something. No one ever seems to say "Interaction Block", "Topic Block" or "Community Block". But somehow "ban" gets interchanged with "block" all the time. There should be no confusion in the terminology, especially for admins. Blocks are blocks, bans are bans. Doc talk 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How can bind the article page with Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by علي محسن البكاء (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Dave Oren Ward

Thank you for ending that mess. After attempting to help, I felt like I was being sucker punched from all sides. It was the correct outcome, but what a ridiculous chain of events. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree, it was the correct outcome. If only people didnt use wikipedia to launch personal vendettas, think of all the time that would've been devoted to actual "noteworthy" articles. Obviously the better judgement of the Objective wiki community prevailed. Hopefully we can all move on, time will tell as the author of all three articles is still under a block for puppetting himself.🐍 02:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarkFalls&oldid=641954818"