Idel800
_killed_during_the_Operation_Searchlight_on_March_25,_1971_were_kept_lying_in_front_of_the_dormitory_the_next_day.jpeg){kind=link}
Manipulation
edit
Idel800 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin EdJohnston blocked me after a manipulated comment by the admin Diannaa in WP:ANI who was involved in editing the page Genocidal rape where these disputes arising. Look, my complaint in WP:ANI was this [1] - "My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines in Genocidal rape, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively. One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation [2], [3] though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now. And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert [4], the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards [5] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [6] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing." The admin Diannaa (who was involved in editing this page) wrote in her comment in WP:ANI, "In my opinion Darkness Shines was making good-faith attempts to remove copyright violations from the encyclopedia. About half an hour after performing the reverts, he asked me to have a look at the suspected violations. Things like that are tricky to investigate, and that's why he asked me to double check his work, as I've done literally tens of thousands of these copyvio searches. It seems unlikely to me that if he was knowingly violating any of our policies or guidelines he would draw attention to his actions by calling in an administrator to examine what he was doing...................................The other instance he asked me to look at was a copyright violation, material that you copied from http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm. Not all the content he removed in that edit was copied from that source, but lots of it was, so I did revision deletion. He removed some of the content for editorial reasons other than copyvio, which is something that you will need to discuss with him on the talk page if you propose to re-add the content." This is completely irrelevant comment. She is referring to my previous post which was challenged by Darkness Shines for copyright violation, and according to the admin Diannaa, which was a partial (not complete) copyright violation, and was removed. But I never posted those disputed contents in the article again afterwards. So that incident is clearly out of this discussion. Furthermore, I can't be blocked at this point for that previous copyright violation, as I did not post the disputed contents in the article afterwords and there is no edit war regarding the disputed contents either. The admin EdJohnston mentions the reason for block is "copyright violation" and "edit warring", both of which are misleading. My complaint was for last 2 edits made by Darkness Shines both of which are disruptive edits. Among the last 2 edits, in one edit, when no copyright dispute was involved, the user Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively [7]. As the edit note for making this revert, the user Darkness Shines writes as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb". Regarding this revert note, the admin Diannaa writes in her comment in WP:ANI, "I discovered that the content he found at the Huffington Post had been present in our article Comfort women since at least 2011, and thus was okay to copy as long as the proper attribution was given, which it was." Look, my complaint was for this revert made by Darkness Shines, and the admin Diannaa doesn't clarify whether this revert made by Darkness Shines was legitimate or not. She states as my edit was legitimate as I gave proper attribution after copying contents from Comfort women. Please note that I provided clear attribution in edit note after copying contents from Comfort women. So what does Diannaa's comment mean? It mean's as there was no copyright violation in my edit and my edit was legitimate (and perhaps the revert made by Darkness Shines was illegitimate). The user Darkness Shines reverted my edit making a false claim of copyright violation to make it appear as he is reverting my edit for a copyright violation when he is reverting my valid edit. I reverted his action back afterwards [8] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [9] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Regarding the admin Diannaa's comment that the "Huffington Post" article was used as a reference in Comfort women in 2011, I would like you to have a cross check there. There is no such "Huffington Post" article used as a reference in Comfort women now. Also, in my edits, there was no reference to any "Huffington Post" article, and the contents in the "Huffington Post" article are not relevant to the contents in my edits. No wonder, the user Darkness Shines made a misleading and deceptive edit note referring to a non-existent copyright violation to make it appear as he is reverting my edits for a copyright violation. My request is to undo the last revert made by Darkness Shines, unblock my account, and if possible, delete the block the admin EdJohnston made by mistake from my block log. Furthermore, Darkness Shines's misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. Can there also be an action against him for writing misleading and deceptive edit note and making claim of a non-existent copyright violation? Idel800 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Both the block log entry and the block message which was posted to this page stated that the block was for edit warring. I have checked your editing history, and you were edit warring. An unblock request which dwells at great length on issues other than that which was the reason for the block without addressing that issue is not going to get you unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 14 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.
Just popped in to clear up a few misconceptions.
- 1. Darkness Shines was incorrect about the Huffington Post copyvio. This does not mean he was acting in bad faith or being abusive; it merely means he was wrong. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you think Darkness Shines just made a mistake by making this revert [10] (and claiming that he is reverting it for copyright violation) and didn't do anything abusive intentionally, then how will you explain his second revert - [11] that he made without explaining any reason. After he reverted my valid edits [12], where no copyright violation is involved, I reverted his action back afterwards [13] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [14] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Do you think the last revert the user Darkness Shines made[15] was also his unintentional mistake and not abusive activity. Because in my edit note, I mentioned it clearly [16] that the copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines is false. Despite this, Darkness Shines once again reverted my edit [17] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder he has made illegitimate revert that needs to be undone now. And furthermore, he needs to warned to stop making such abusive reverts. Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- 2. The reason you don't find the Huffington Post article being used as a citation at Comfort women is because they copied from us rather than the other way around. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the 'Huffington post' reference doesn't exist anywhere in the entire Comfort women article either. I have cross checked. As you said it was there in 2011, maybe it has been already removed. However, that is not the question at all. In the contents I posted from Comfort women, there was no reference to any 'Huffington post' article and the contents in that 'Huffington post' article are not similar to the contents I posted in 'Genocidal rape' either. That 'Huffington post' article was completely irrelevant, and as it doesn't exist in the entire Comfort women article either, I wonder where did Darkness Shines discover that article. Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- 3. Darkness Shines repeatedly removed content that he suspected contained a copyright violation. Other reverts were done with edit summaries indicating he believed the content should be removed for reasons other than copyvio. After removing, he immediately opened a discussion on the talk page. Per the WP:BRD cycle, once your addition has been challenged, you need to go to the talk page to discuss, not repeatedly reinsert the material over the objections of the other person. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is another misleading comment. The only legitimate revert made by Darkness Shines was these [18], [19] (for partial copyright violation of http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm), and after he reverted these edits, I never posted those contents in the article back. So, nothing wrong from my side in this regard. All other reverts made by Darkness Shines are illegitimate as those of my edits didn't include any copyright violation, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit notes to make it appear as he is reverting my edit for a copyright violation when he is actually reverting valid edits. I responded to all his posts in the talk page and in edit warring noticeboard. However, he was not willing to answer my questions, and he does not mention any reason he was reverting my edits. For example, in this revert [20], he mentions in the edit note that he is making this revert for a copyright violation, which is misleading. So, I reverted his action back afterwards [21] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [22] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- 4. My only activity at Genocidal rape was to respond to Darkness Shines' copyvio question on the talk page. I have never edited the article and am not WP:involved, as Wikipedia defines it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In the public log of Genocidal rape the http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm copyright violation is listed, and that copyright violation is identified by you there. This is why I said that you were involved in page editing of Genocidal rape (or patrolling). Anyway, now come to the point. There is no reason behind blocking my account. The entire thing is manipulated and number of false allegations were made towards me. If the only mistake I made was making edit that constitute a partial copyright violation, that doesn't warrant a block on my account at this point as I never posted those disputed contents back in this article again. The user Darkness Shines clearly made an abusive edit by reverting my edit without any reason, even after I mentioned in the edit note that his copyright violation claim was false. And for obvious reasons, the last revert made by Darkness Shines should be undone, and he should at least be warned and my account should be unblocked. Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Idel800 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again the admin JamesBWatson is influenced by further manipulative comments by Diannaa. I responded to the comments of Diannaa now. Please check again. Also consider having a cross check in the references I provided, rather than reading other users' comments only. Idel800 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You again do not note that the block is for edit warring, which is proven through your editing history. To accuse neutral admins who are reviewing your unblock request as being "manipulated" is uncalled for. I agree with the restriction of talk page access and agree your block should remain. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:32, 14 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.
- To accuse every admin or editor being "manipulated" will not help your case at all. Should you continue, you are more likely to find your access to your talk page revoked. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Though I mentioned it already in the answer to Diannaa's comments, to repeat it again, the only legitimate revert made by Darkness Shines was these [23], [24] (for partial copyright violation of http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm), and after he reverted these edits, I never posted those contents in the article back. So, nothing wrong from my side in this regard. All other reverts made by Darkness Shines are illegitimate as those of my edits didn't include any copyright violation, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit notes to make it appear as he is reverting my edit for a copyright violation when he is actually reverting valid edits. I responded to all his posts in the talk page and in edit warring noticeboard. However, he was not willing to answer my questions, and he does not mention any reason he was reverting my edits. For example, in this revert [25], he mentions in the edit note that he is making this revert for a copyright violation, which is misleading. So, I reverted his action back afterwards [26] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [27] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. There is no reason behind blocking my account. The entire thing is manipulated and number of false allegations were made towards me. If the only mistake I made was making edit that constitute a partial copyright violation, that doesn't warrant a block on my account at this point as I never posted those disputed contents back in this article again. The user Darkness Shines clearly made an abusive edit by reverting my edit without any reason, even after I mentioned in the edit note that his copyright violation claim was false. And for obvious reasons, the last revert made by Darkness Shines should be undone, and he should at least be warned and my account should be unblocked. Idel800 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Can you stop pinging me, I've had about twenty notifications now and it's getting annoying Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you think I was "influenced by further manipulative comments by Diannaa". I was influenced by just two facts: (1) you were blocked for edit warring and (2) your unblock request did not address the issue of edit warring. That is all.
- Once again you have posted absurdly long walls of text which have nothing to do with the reason for your block, and which are full of endless accusations against other editors. You are never going to be unblocked on the basis of such posts, as you will already know if you took the advice you have repeatedly been given to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting unblock requests. Since such pointless off-topic unblock requests achieve nothing except for wasting time of administrators, I am going to remove your talk page access for the duration of the block. The persistent pinging of editors, mentioned above, is further reason for removing talk page access. If the administrator who reviews your current request disagrees with that decision, he or she is perfectly free to restore your talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply to your email
editI have read your email. I understand what you are saying, and you do have a valid point. However, what you are asking me to do is to edit on your behalf while you are blocked, effectively helping you to get round the block. If you had drawn my attention to something such as a copyright infringement or possible libel, I would have dealt with it, but this is an ordinary case of two editors disagreeing over article content, and you should deal with it through the normal ways of dealing with content disputes once the block is over, which will be in one day and a few hours from now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I also received an email. Just to let you know that I did review all the diffs, both yours and Darkness Shines, before I posted at WP:ANI and before I decided what to do. I already answered your question; in fact I have already answered it twice. The two diffs you presented are when Darkness Shines is removing what he believes to be a copyright violation from the Huffington Post. To answer your query above, he likely found the overlap with the Huffington Post article by using one of our copyvio detection tools. Not all the content he removed appears in the HuffPost article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Idel800 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19772 was submitted on Nov 15, 2017 05:10:12. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Idel800 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19773 was submitted on Nov 15, 2017 06:37:38. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have now read your second email. You are simply using email to continue to post the same kind of thing which led to your talk page access being removed. I also suspect from what Diannaa has said above that your email to her may have been doing that. You also seem to have completely misunderstood my message above: the issue which you are dealing with is one which should be dealt with through the normal channels, and there is no reason there at all for anyone, administrator or otherwise, to do on your behalf things which you could do yourself if you were not blocked. Nor is there any reason to allow you to use email to avoid the effect of your talk page access being removed, by simply posting the same kinds of things by email. I shall therefore remove your email access for what time is left of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have also received a second email. Darkness Shines makes the case on the talk page that mass rape is not the same thing as genocidal rape, and therefore he objects to you copying the content from comfort women to genocidal rape. This is a valid editorial reason to object to your edit. No administrator is going to endorse your edit or perform it for you, thereby taking your side in an edit war and making a content decision. When he reverted your edit because he mistakenly thought it contained a copyright violation, he did not violate our policies or justifies administrative action. Making a mistake is not the same thing as being intentionally deceptive. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Image without license
editUnspecified source/license for File:Bodies of Bangali students of Dhaka University's Iqbal Hall (now Shaheed Sergeant Zahurul Haq Hall) killed during the Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971 were kept lying in front of the dormitory the next day.jpeg
edit_killed_during_the_Operation_Searchlight_on_March_25,_1971_were_kept_lying_in_front_of_the_dormitory_the_next_day.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Bodies of Bangali students of Dhaka University's Iqbal Hall (now Shaheed Sergeant Zahurul Haq Hall) killed during the Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971 were kept lying in front of the dormitory the next day.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Rape during war
editPlease note that this might be the better page, Wartime sexual violence, to make your additions. Rape during wartime, is not always genocidal in nature and the information you provide seems to be better suited to article and it's talk page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Only images in public domain are allowed
editAs Wikipedia can not control who or how the images posted to their pages are used, it is imperative that only images in the public domain or those uploaded with owner permission are allow on here. Anything else can puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)