User talk:Black Kite/Archive 43

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

Note

User StillStanding-247, after all his complaining about "outing", is now reluctant to take any action. So I'm playing the nanny here: Please look at his history, and rev-del, at the very least, the place or two where he states his own IP address in an edit summary. If you want to, that is. It's his problem, not mine. P.S. Nifty Jolly Roger. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Might be worth doing a couple of obvious ones, but the links to it are all over place now and most of them aren't in edit summaries. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The main problem is that my current account shows the name of my previous one.[1] We can redact the mention on my user page, but then there's two generations of signatures that are all over the place. Unless there's some automated tool, I just don't see how it can be done. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't actually want to mention it, but since you did anyway, it'd be almost impossible to fix everything. We once had an editor that went through thousands of their talkpage edits changing every signature. It took them months. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I figured. On my talk page, Singularity42 suggested that it's still worth fixing a few places. Perhaps they can chime in here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm hitting the sack now (2.30am here - my daughter has finally gone to sleep!) so if you have some revs you think could so with being fixed either list them here or email me with them. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I did a full history purge on the userpage. T. Canens (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The one that I'd really love to get rid of is the comment on my block, but I'm not sure whether it can be changed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The old account still links there as well as all the previous edit signatures. Not sure you can ever fully clean that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right, but at least we can get rid of some of it. Speaking of which, after the earlier incident, Collect reoffended[2]. Would someone please clean up after him? I could report it on ANI but that would start the clown cars unloading again and I'm sick of circuses. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The offense was from you -- and your post here is beating a very dead horse. IIRC, you were blocked for edit war under your old name - and it is contrary to policy to "clean up" such things. And by the way, when you make posts like this on other talk pages, it is usual to notify the person you're attacking. And I find your "clown cars" comment offensive, just in case you care. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking for the block to be expunged, but for the comment not to mention my old name. I don't think it's technically possible, though. I was, however, informed about a tool called WP:AWB that, in the right hands, could potentially scrub Wikipedia of all mentions of my IP and my previous account. Not sure that it's worth asking for, though.
As for the rest of what you said, you seem unrepentant and this is not the right venue. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not mention your name in my post. You added your name to my post which would make people think I mentioned your name in it - which I did not do. And you accuse me of being "unrepentant"??? Collect (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not true, but thanks for reminding me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Still-24-45-42-125&oldid=507890220 has to be expunged. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it is true. What happened is that Collect's edit made no mention to you or your ip whatsoever and you assumed he was making a reference about you. For some bizarre reason, you refactored his comment and confirmed the assumption. If any outing was done, it is purely your own doing. Now should editors be bandying your ip address or location after you’ve made it clear you don’t like that? Of course not. But for you to refactor Collect’s comment then accuse him of outing you takes some serious Chutzpah.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's simply false. It's obvious that Collect was referring to me, and I was right to redact Collect's comment, but I shouldn't have tried so hard to avoid the Streisand effect that I wound up creating it. I should have stated that this was an outing attempt so it should not be restored and/or allowed it to be reverted back. And I should not have even tried to redact the comments by others that drew attention to the original redaction. Like I said, I tried so hard that it backfired, although in my defense, much of the backfire came from the inability of some editors to recognize my obvious intent in the redaction and my frustration with it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Obvious"? Not. What you have is a long history of refactoring talk pages and noticeboard pages, and placing words into the posts which were not placed there by the poster! Over and over and over you have done this - and the patience of the community is wearing quite thin for such antics. You were the one who inserted your username into my post. I suggest you read the Five Pillars before doing more -- though meanehwhile I note that you have sought another editor to "take over" your proposed RfC on a wikiproject of which I am not a member. I suppose you feel that this would then remove you from being the originator of that attack, but it doesn't work that way. My recommendation is that you sit down with a nice cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is beyond claims outing. Your refactoring of Collect’s comment is a perfect example of the Streisand effect in action. By violating several policies in the resulting revert/refactor frenzy you went on, you drew far more eyes to this edit had you done nothing at all. Did you read the advice on dealing with harassment? Your failure to remain calm exacerbated the situation. Your constant wiki-lawyering and argumentative nature is disruptive. Black Kite might think this is a simple matter of political opposition between editors. Yes there are POV pushers on both sides, but none of them are causing such disruption as generated by you traipsing across battlegrounds, suitcase in hand.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          20:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment @Black Kite, can you please warn Still that his refactoring and deleting of others comments was and continues to be unaccpetable? This is not the first time he has been brought to ANI over this. While you had understandble concerns about claims of outing this issue was never addressed.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

See above: I was warned about not redacting anything but the actual outing, and I admit that I was wrong in that regard, which is why I stopped. Redacting Collect's words, however, was entirely justified. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Still, there really isn't anything you can do about the old account was my point. Mentioning it isn't outing. Until 2008, I was known as User:Pharmboy. Unless I vanish under WP:RTV, that will never change. (I'm also User:Farmer Brown, btw) Even under RTV, if you go back to the same articles and someone links you, that isn't outing. I can't unlink those accounts as my original edits have the Pharmboy sig. The only difference is that your choice of names was revealing more information than you would like, in hindsight. This is a catch 22 for you due to the unique circumstances. I say this because I think you have to accept that the linkage will always be there and there is literally nothing that can be done, short of a real RTV or leaving for good, both of which I don't recommend. Acceptance is much less stress than fighting a battle you can't win. I changed my name to my real name, Dennis Brown, when I accepted there is no real privacy anyway. I've accidentally learned the real names of a great many people on this website because this isn't the only website they edit on. Of course, I don't out them, but I'm not extraordinarily clever, so I'm surely not the only one that knows their real names and locations. As for conduct of parties, I haven't looked close enough due to time, my comments are restricted to the topic of outing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, Dennis, but WP:OUTING clearly says the material should not be repeated if redacted, and SS had redacted the mention of his previous IP from his userpage and changed his username. Thus, an editor indicating that they know where SS lives because they geolocated the IP is not helpful. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, let me ask an ignorant question (more ignorant than usual): Is there really anything you can tell from an IP address beyond what city and state the IP supposedly emanates from? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Not that I can really tell myself.. Some of us, myself included, give a brief description bout themselves on their user page that includes where they live.. I don't think that knowing where someone is from, is really all that big of a deal. I can tell sometimes just by reading someone's comment, that they are from the UK, but if I point that out on a talk page, am I really outing that person? This is just untreated drama..JOJ Hutton 19:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Not the point really. I'm from West Yorkshire (probably easily worked out from the articles about the football club I support), I lived in Warwickshire when I started editing Wikipedia (as can probably be worked out from the village articles I edited) and now I'm back in Yorkshire (although I move around a lot with my job!). That's not really (or at all) identifying material. BUT if the editor doesn't want that information revealed, and attempts to redact it, then WP:OUTING states that it should not be re-stated, which is what was done. It really isn't rocket science. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The principle of mens rea applies here. Unless Still redacts every signature that references his old account and every mention of his IP across the entire project, and somehow has his old account renamed (which could be questioned as evading scrutiny), there's a possibility that another user will link the two facts together through un-redacted information and this makes it not a case of outing. 'The internet never forgets' applies here, not to mention the textbook Streisand effect. If you hadn't reacted at all, Still, the information would have been 'hidden in plain sight' and nobody would have made the connection. Now countless people are aware. This is something you need to put down as 'I fucked up' and avoid accusing Collect of having broken any rules here, because he didn't. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that collect "did not" need to make the comment of what state Still lived in, although its was fairly common knowledge at that point anyway, and I WAS a bit sympathetic to Still's cause on the issue, although I never support removing or refactoring ANY comment that is not my own. Still should have quietly and politely asked Collect to redact or change his own comment, rather than edit war over the issue. Then to make matters worse, Still made no less than three personal attacks against other editors and completely removed the comments of three ANI posts of other editors. I've seen many an editor get a nice lengthy block for doing a whole lot less.--JOJ Hutton 01:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer you above Bugs, yes the IP can tell you more than geolocation but only in select circumstances. If the IP is a corporate static IP, then you probably work for them, for example. Or a university IP, or it is running services. There are a great many other nuances that can be determined by the IP in some cases. Even residential cable with dynamic IP can provide some extra info in very limited circumstances, using a few network tools not found at Wikipedia. The vast majority of people, however, would not know how to do this, and again, it is only in limited circumstances that it would tell you more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's much point commenting here -- it might be best to just leave the expired equine alone -- but I can't help but to respond to exactly one point. NULL brings up mens rea, the guilty state of mind. I have to ask what was on Collect's mind when he decided to share what he believed to be a fact about my location. This is not something that's prominently displayed on my talk page. It's not even something he needed to mention in order to explain why he didn't think I was a sock puppet. What was he thinking? What was his motivation? Did the think any good could come of it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving.

So they're in the process of topic banning me, and I'm not going to stick around if they do that. I'm going to request WP:VANISH, and I'd like to ask you to wipe my talk pages completely, as they contain my IP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • It appears that consensus there is completely against banning you. Wikipedians are generally quite good at throwing out vexatious claims. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You are correct about the consensus, although my survey of ANI history didn't give me much confidence. In my estimation, there seems to be a trend towards lynch mob mentality. On an unrelated note, I was wondering if you could take a look at this and act as you feel appropriate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I will point out though, that most people's comments seemed less in support of you, but more in opposition to the fact that you were the only subject of the proposal. I think that if polled, most of those editors might support a topic ban for several editors as a group, yourself included. I would of course, oppose such a tactic, and I'll tell you why. No editor should ever be banned from expressing his or her opinion on a talk page. I think topic bans are punitive measures to silence opposition. So I would rarely support these types of topic bans, especially on hotly contested articles. Unfortunately many editors have been topic banned for various reasons in the past, and I think its a crying shame. I would however, support sanctions, for everyone, on these articles. That would include complete civility on the talk pages, 1RR on the content articles, and asking for uninvolved parties to help in dispute resolution, when needed. Having an article fully protected makes all of us look very very bad. It should never have come to that at all.--JOJ Hutton 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I mostly agree with your conclusions, if not your reasoning. Blocks and bans are crude tools, and often overused. Holding participants on controversial articles to high standards is the right answer. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread about Nangparbat

Sorry Black Kite, I clicked the edit button and saved it without looking that it just got archived. Anyways if you still want to remove my comment you are welcome but I seriously question why is the range not blocked? --SMS Talk 21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I replied at ANI. The range (BT Broadband) is massive - around 1 in every 8 UK Internet users are on it (I am myself). Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Black Kite. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching wikipedia policies, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

But remove the protection from my talk, I would prefer people see what I put up with next time. And I do get IP editors ask for help once in a while. Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, he is not going away as he usually does, can you protect my page again p[lease, it will save some people a bit of time. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect Request: Family Research Council

I would like to request unprotection of Family Research Council as the content dispute has been resolved. Many thanks. – MrX 02:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo and renaming

Hi, you've made a small typo in your decision to merge this article: you concluded that it should be merged with Rafil Samarov instead of Ramil Safarov. Would you please correct this typo to avoid any confusion? And also this article was renamed from Extradition of Ramil Safarov to Extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov after it was nominated for deletion, so the message with your decision doesn't show up on the current title. Would you be so kind to fix it too? Thank you. --Daniel (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification for deletion of "Extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov"

Could you explain why you deleted the page Extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov? Best, Konullu (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum advice.

I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm in a situation that I'd like to resolve before the arbitrary topic ban comes down.

I am dealing with an admin who refuses to give me a straight answer about what behavior is acceptable on the election articles, which are under community probation. As far as I can tell, he is singling me out for negative attention and repeated threats. I find it impossible to comply with his requirements because he won't state any in advance, which makes the whole thing arbitrary. As such, there is nothing I can do to avoid a ban other than effectively banning myself, which I won't do.

Now, I could go to WP:ANI, but it seems to be more drama than substance. Is there a proper venue for this to be pursued? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Will keep an eye on it. Bit unimpressed with parts of that conversation on TP's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw. Thanks for being a voice of reason. Ditto to MastCell, who managed to overcome his unhappiness with me to do what's right. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of trolling...

Could you take a look at the contributions of another editor? User:Viriditas for the same warning or possible 24 hr or more block for same said behavior as well as possibly more serious issues? Thanks you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Are you talking purely about the discussion on SS247's talkpage or have you other diffs? Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Here's another diff. The guy harasses people on their talk page, tells them to leave the site or else, then scrounges up a few admins in his pocket to harass the user he doesn't like even more. Way to go guys! Good work. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The reason I asked for more diffs is because I can't actually see anything to warn you for ... the SS247 talkpage conversation is nothing to write home about. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
        • The SS-247 talkpage is not the issue at all. I will prepare diffs for the request and return in a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have zero interest in that page and have no reason to return. My concern is with the repeated distortions and misinterpretations of policy and guidelines being dispensed by Amadscientist across the pedia. He seems to just make stuff up as he goes but expects others to join in his fantasy. I'm really too busy to care about this kind of childish behavior. Consider me gone from that topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I will be adding diffs shortly but wanted to point out that Kerfuffler had to be removed from a DR/N filing for disruption and incivil comments and still continued uncollapsing the hiding of his "off topic comments". I was the DR/N volunteer.[3] (Talk:Christian right). As for Viriditas' continued accusations of my understanding of Wikipedia, these are apart of the gross mischaracterization and continued undermining of my work. Not what I thought we called collaboration. He seems to feel this is a politcal message board or forum and has continued the tactic of severe personal attacks against me (including name calling and character assination) in this manner that have no basis in fact and seem specificly designed as continuing a conflict of his own making to prolong disruption in a number of locations. With every accusation I have explained policy and guideline and I stand by those explanations. This isn't...as Dennis Brown put it (and in a really hilarious way, which he took upon himself to intervene in. I did not seek him out there) "...an evil plot by Amadscientist"! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Good luck with that. I merely point out that of your last 100 edits, 97 of them are wikilawyering and/or arguing about other people's behavior. I suppose I'm being uncharitable characterizing the DRN volunteer list discussion that way, but it's been pretty hostile tense too. Dude, you need a break. —Kerfuffler  squawk
    hawk          06:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, as off base as it is. Being confronted by hostility on pages of such a controversial nature requires some explanation when intimidation tactics are being used. I also dispute your accusation of wikilaywering as I am not posting policy and guidelines to explain a reason for posting information, but to defend myself against exacting attacks on my understanding of Wikipedia. Good luck with your time on Wiki Ker, but I am now officialy asking you to stop following me to pages and to no longer engage with me in any way. The connection to Viriditas is obvious and your collapsing of a discussion that was actially about improving the article (albeit very long and extensive) was innappropriate and clearly biased.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, you did visit my talk page to trash talk Viriditas and accuse him of being a bad influence. I would suggest that escalating this feud would not be helpful. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that "fair"? Did I actually come to your page to do that? And is what I said "trash" talk? But thank you for the dots that seem to connect the three of you.
Black Kite , I will post my diffs in a formal complaint tomorrow afternoon. I tried to take the evening for myself, but this discussion should serve as an example of the manner in which these three are behaving. A perception of tag teaming to bash me when I have attempted to be fair minded. I am not an admin, but frankly this is becoming a clear attempt to drive me away from Wikipedia in a very dishonest manner. Sadly i felt the need to defend SS-247 in a number of ways but he is just not a reasonable editor to deal with. Wikipedia is not "Survivor" or "Big Brother" with a cash prize to the last editor standing and I now believe there is no redeaming quality that I can find with confrontational dishonesty. Seriously. Banning is not punative. It is meant to discurage bad conduct and behavior and clear violations of policy. I now support discouraging these editors from further disruption of the Encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, as I explained at some length on my talk page, I feel that blocking is usually a bad idea and banning is acceptable only as a last resort when nothing else works. As such, I have never recommended banning you, and I'd be as hesitant to recommend blocking you as I would anyone else. As such, your wild accusations about my tag-teaming with Viriditas to drive you away from Wikipedia are completely out of touch with reality. I am explicitly not out to get you, so I would appreciate it if you didn't try to make an enemy out of me by spreading these claims. I don't think I've ever even suggested that you leave Wikipedia, much less tried to force you to.
My first thought is that you're confusing me with Viriditas, but the truth is that those accusations don't stick even when applied to him. The point I was trying to make with my previous comment here is that you seem to be intentionally engaging with him even though you two don't get along. Maybe you should just disengage. That's what I did with one editor, going so far as a voluntary interaction ban, and it's worked out for both of us. I am trying to offer you helpful advice based on what I've been through. Please take it as such. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps when everyone is out to get you, or you're angry, or you're willfully skirting 3RR, the problem is you? Just a thought. And I was asking you to voluntarily take a break. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  07:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You are a disruptive, incivil editor, who's aims are very clear. Your difs show nothing of note accept to futher your conflict which I seriously believe is in retaliation to some sense of unfairness you percieve. I think you are not of any real value to the encyclopedia and have the same "message board" mentality of SS and V. I support a topic ban, or block/ban of all three of you, but that is not what I am here to discuss. I am here specificly to complain about Wikistalking.harasment and personal attack by another editor. Please feel free to make your complaint seperate from mine and again please stop interacting with me. Don't use my name, my username or refer to me in any manner unless you are making a formal comlplaint to this Admin against me. I see you as simply furthering a conflict that should never have occured and you seem very much to be as disruptive as the other two.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ever since I mentioned the bad-mouthing, Amadscientist has focused his attention on my recent article talk page comments, adding hostile responses to them. This is precisely the sort of stalking-like behavior that he exhibited with Viriditas and that I've now repeatedly suggested that he stop. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I now have lost all faith in you. I support your removal from the project ( the encyclopedia) and advised editors to stop facilitating you and make formal complaints. I support a topic ban of you at least and an idef block for dishonest and disruptive editing and even a full ban for life. You have an agenda as clear as day and have dug yourself into the Christian Right article.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, this is like a family reunion. Do I know you guys in RL? Are we related? Please, can we all stop this and hit the reset button? We're all here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Let's get back to that and stop sniping at each other, OK? Amadscientist, I see now that I have really set you off. I didn't realize that I was poking you with a stick, but it appears that's what I have done. I want to apologize for stressing you out and making you feel like you were under attack. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like Good comment.--v/r - TP 13:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Funny you should say that Viriditas.....I have tons of family in Hawaii. If you have native Hawaiian ancestry, we may well be related. ( We certainly are about as equally strong minded...which could explain the sort "Irresistible force paradox" forming from our discussions) From our first encounter I thought it would actualy be great to interact with someone in Hawaii again, but we never really had a chance to see the things we have in common due to the things we don't. I looked and it appears I never added my name to am a member of the Hawaii WikiProject. I accept the apology in the spirit it was offered and retract mt request that you stay of my talkpage. Feel free to address concerns there again as I am most certain we will still be working on many of the same articles in the future.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You're both pretty bad ass, I'm impressed.--v/r - TP 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, in the same spirit, I'd like to apologize. When I mentioned what happened on my talk page, I had no idea it would offend you this much and did not intend to do so. We're not going to agree on everything but we're both trying to edit the same encyclopedia, so let's keep it impersonal. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Full computer dump of all past situations. Reset in progress.
I would also like to extend an apology to both Viriditas and StillStanding-247 if I prolonged the agony.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I will also degauss that memory, and hope that we can interact more positively going forward. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  22:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the out-of-the-blue comment - but having just noticed this thread, thanks for the outbreak of sanity and good will! Hal peridol (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor is back at it

Hello there. Recently you rejected a proposal to block an editor (as seen here). While I realize you felt a block would be of little help since the edit warring may have taken place over a week, rather than, say a day, I thought I would let you know the editor is back at it (check out this article history). IMO, a block, even for an editor who may not access WP daily and therefore the block may not do much good, 1) sends a signal that their behavior is not helpful and 2) it's difficult for us to guess when the editor might attempt to access WP next, and therefore, even a short block may do some good. Instead, I'm now having to deal with this editor again, who obviously disregards warnings and invitations for discussion (as well as edit notices, which is why I'm reverting the editor's edits). Zepppep (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard for vandalism is leaving the user hang. They in fact just removed them selves from the 3RRNB as seen here. Zepppep (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

NFCC page

I do not get how you can see a consensus. Even the editor who initially made the change to the guideline said anyone was free to revert and that a new discussion should be opened on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Regardless, I cannot anywhere see any consensus (or even significant opinion) that NFCC8/NFCI1 should not apply to usage other than in infoboxes. If you can show me such I'd be grateful. This has been a longstanding consensus guideline and I don't see why the addition of the footnote to the NFC page is such a problem. I'm not desperately wedded to it; I wouldn't revert again if another editor re-removed it. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Except the disagreement is over whether such images already satisfy NFCC#8 under the provision in the guideline that critical commentary of the work allows inclusion of the cover art for visual identification. It is not about whether NFCC8 applies to the images, but whether the guideline allows their use in pages on those who created the work where the work is the subject of critical commentary. This footnote is about changing the guidelines to reflect the position of those editors who only support or tolerate the inclusion of such images on articles specifically about the work.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If you consider a musical artist, then in any well-rounded article there will be critical commentary of many of their works. Given that these works already justify a non-free image in their own article, there cannot be a justification to re-use it (NFCC3a also applies here) unless there is critical commentary of the cover art itself (which is possible, but rare). Remember, NFCC8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The topic in this article is the musical artist, not the cover art. However, non-free music samples may be a different matter; compare, for example, visual artists, where there are often multiple non-free images of their work in their articles - but these individual works do not have their own articles and they are contributing to the understanding of the work of the artist. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that position has been agreed to by any sort of consensus. There is an understanding that non-free images should be used sparingly, but this would not inherently preclude cover art from being included in these cases. Your analogy is taking the extreme example where this would be akin to the guideline's restriction regarding lists, while ignoring more limited cases where an image of a particularly definitive work in the history of the subject is being included when the same is not being done for more trivial works.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying they can never be used in that way - merely that there has to be a good reason why a piece of cover art is needed if an album is being discussed, over and above being used for identification only (and thus failing NFCC8). If editors don't provide a really good rationale for that, it needs to be disallowed. Black Kite (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman

Hey, I noticed that you lifted this editor's block. The block was used as the basis for extending Moll's topic ban from 2012 election articles by a week to match the block, but as it was lifted within a day I am wondering if perhaps the extension of the topic ban should be reversed as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's a major issue, but let us see if the editor wishes to challenge it. Personally, given his editing, it would probably be better for him to stay away from those areas until after the election. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Good unblock

Good unblock. Nobody Ent 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Compare new box on my talkpage. darwinbish BITE 23:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC).
LOL. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect

You might want to strike through this comment, "AQFK is involved as, unimpressed by the outcome, they went to Jimbo in an attempt to get it reversed". I knew that the admins weren't going to do anything about the problem, and it turns out that my prediction was correct, thank you very much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Is there anything that you can do to restore some sanity to the situation? MF has already been before ArbCom and they failed to do anything about it." ... looks pretty unequivocal that it's asking Jimbo to intervene against Malleus to me. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to the timing of everything. I posted to Jimbo's talk page before (not after) the admin thread was closed down (or at least before I saw it - you can examine the time stamps if you want to see what kind of gap there is). Yes, I was appealing to Jimbo, although how he could help, I was leaving to him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I don't think the case is really about that thread anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Black Kite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Al-Ahbash. Thank you. -- McKhan (talk)

Voting proposal on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage

Hey, Black Kite. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage is now live, and there's a proposal for using voting mechanics as part of its closing. If you're still willing to help close (and if you aren't, please let me know ASAP), your feedback would be particularly germane to that proposal. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for unprotection and page move

Re Shiguehiko Hasumi, we have a solution on the talk page, so please unprotect and move page to Shigehiko Hasumi. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Missed

Missed "I think not" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Hadn't realized this (obviously you don't know how to do proper drama). Sorry to hear it; we just lost a significant amount of clue. Hope you'll be back, and hope you enjoy whatever you do instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Very deflated that you've left. Please come back! Tony (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm keeping an eye on the current Arbcom case, but I'm not planning on doing anything else at the moment. As I said above, perhaps when a semblance of sanity returns. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

I saw your comment on ARA and figured it was worth a chat because it touches on a project near and dear to my heart: WP:WP-ET. I understand your concerns with editors whose primary contributions are not to content sitting as the judge of people whose primary contributions are content, but I wanted to run a few thoughts by you.

First, average lifespan of an active Wikipedian is something like 700 days. To get elected to Arbcom, most people look for a very lengthy history of contributions to judge the person's commitment the project and their suitability be deciders. Arbcom terms are 365 to 730 days long, on top of an editing career that usually includes at least 365 days to become an admin and 365 days of service as admins. Therefore, I would suspect that a majority of Arbs will live out their careers as editors during their terms and very fairly inactive by the end of their terms. Obviously there are exceptions, Kirill comes to mind, but I'm talking as a general rule.

Second, from what I understand, Arbcom has a huge pile of work. Between sorting email requests, discussing cases, and handling checkuser and oversight matters, the amount of their Wiki-time that is absorbed by Arb duties seems rather large. Were we to expect them to maintain equally large portfolios of article work, I suspect they were end up neglecting their duties as Arbs and not deciding matters.

Third, the community knew what it was getting when it elected these specific people as Arbs. As stated above, it had lengthy contribution histories to go off of and if it believed someone had or would develop an insufficient attention to content contribution, it could have opposed them. None of these Arbs were cut from new cloth, so to say that they are not in touch with the goal of the project, content creation, seems to be an equal accusation towards the community that it selected people not in touch with itself to serve as its judges. The alternative position, which I take, is that the community can't really complain about what it decided. It delegated authority to these people to make decisions it found itself unable to make and to second guess those decisions undermines the integrity of the entire system. As I said here, I would look for specific corruption, such as acting when involved, attempting to extend their terms in office, or acting outside their jurisdiction over user conduct and not that their decisions were stupid, irrational, or different from what I believe, before I would be willing to disrupt the system in opposition to their decisions.

Not trying to convince you to change your mind, but figured you put a lot of time into those numbers, so it was worth stopping by for a chat. Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comment. My point was not so much those particular Arbs current usefulness to the project, but more the fact that they have become detached from the day-to-day environment on the encyclopedia. I don't however completely buy the workload issues; whilst that may be a reason for a minor-drop off in editing, there are many Arbs who have still contributed very large amounts during their terms and here we are talking practically no input at all, especially in two of the cases. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_43&oldid=1139017685"