Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Socks of blocked user

Hi, Black Kite. You blocked today Wavey201000 (talk · contribs) and Lumina201000 (talk · contribs). There are two more socks making the same nonsense edit, namely Croat201000 (talk · contribs) and Indus air (talk · contribs). Beagel (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Not for you, for your daughter, hope she is OK.

Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Deadmaus move

You said in your close that there was consensus to move Deadmaus back to Deadmau5. Can't you just make that move and save us from going through another RM when we already have consensus? —Frungi (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I think the close was correct - I don't see how we can really close an RM for a move from A to B with a move to C. I'm all for minimizing bureaucracy and it's a shame that another RM is needed, but I think a move to Deadmau5 based on the just-closed RM would probably generate even more policy-wrangling rather than less. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Closure

You removed my comment which was outside the archive box. So when the closer comments something to an editor, what is he supposed to do? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Its weird, to drag the issue to your talk page. But i guess its the usual practice to not post anything once archived. Maybe we can use a collapsible box like...
I gather that today PumpkinSky was blocked over something that involved his adding comment inside an archived discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Need some help

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Discussions in need of closure and close as many as you can? Thanks. Werieth (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Infamous Sinphony

The article "Infamous Sinphony" that was deleted just recently. Is their any way it can be revived? If not I have to create another I guess, and its actually pointless b/c I'll probably wind up here on the same boat. I will try and search thoroughly for sources. How many do I need? What's the minimum? I found one I had on there. I want this article please help me out. If needed put in my userspace, Thanks in advance. — Pjryb (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2013 comment added by Pjryb (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cited you

I have cited you at the Arbitration Committee case, specifically the misrepresentation of your comment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Help

Can you lend a hand at my talk page? Werieth (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush

Do you think you may have been hasty in closing the the discussion on Sitush in ANI, considering that two editors (yours truly and Amit) who had been contributing to the page under discussion believe that he has effectively taken ownership of the page in violation of WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus and considering that Sitush himself has admitted in the ANI complaint that the entire article now consists almost entirely of his words. Soham321 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is getting close to WP:CIR and WP:TE - see Talk:Digvijaya_Singh#Biased_Edits_of_Sitush_in_violation_of_wikipedia_rules. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Possibly more like WP:IDHT. The point is, however, that WP:ANI is for issues that require intervention by administrators. Content disputes, almost always, do not. We have dispute resolution and WP:RFC for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but in their favour they went to ANI about my behaviour. It seems that they then got a bit confused. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why you decided to delete my AFC Mansfield article

Hi,

Can you please explain why you decided to delete my AFC Mansfield article when both of the initial reasons for why the original proposer for article deletion were subsequently met? Two independent sources were located and referenced for the article, but you still chose to delete it. Apart from the original lack of independent sources, which was subsequently rectified, I really do not understand what I did so wrong for my efforts to be deleted as no matter what i did, and no matter how much support I got from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force (the guidelines for notability for football club articles were established five years ago and AFC Mansfield now fits the notability criteria) I always got the feeling that this article was always going to be deleted and wouldn't it have been more constructive to have helped me improve the article, as another person commenting did, rather than deciding to delete it?(Rillington (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

  • Hi, as i said, project notability cannot override WP:GNG and there was general consensus that this was not reached. I am quite happy to restore the article to your userspace if you wish to improve it. However, if you wish to contest this deletion, please see WP:DRV. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bitchy Resting Face

Hi Black Kite. Thanks for taking the time to look at this deletion discussion. Are you sure you've interpreted the results correctly? It appears to me that no consensus was reached. I wonder if you could review your decision please. The Parson's Cat (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi there, this was a tricky one but with four Deletes and two Keeps I had to lean that way, especially as one of the comments in favour was "lots of coverage in reliable sources" when the majority of the article was sourced to the Daily Mail(!). I don't really see a different closure here, Im afraid. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking: are you sure that "the majority of the article was sourced to the Daily Mail"? There were four references, including an academic journal. The references included several newspapers - US and UK - and an academic journal. Also, there were only three Deletes against two Keeps - and very little discussion aimed at consensus. Could you take another look, please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The nomination counts as a Delete, hence the four v two. I do see the other sources now (the inline sourcing was done weirdly) but I would strongly suggest userfying it to userspace and improving it. I'd be quite happy to do that if you wish. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for looking. I think I'll go for the 'contest this deletion' route. For reference, what was it that came across weird about the inline sourcing? The format I used was taken directly from the Wikipedia help - though I know it's not what most people do! Any pointers would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsonscat (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The best way to do inline sourcing is to place the citation in the text i.e. <ref>{{cite news |title=Title Here |author=Author Name |url= www.whatever.com|newspaper= Daily News |date= Date of Article}}</ref> and then place a {{reflist}} template at the bottom of the page. The references are generated automatically then, and are much easier to handle. More info at WP:INCITE. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Thanks. This doesn't come across in the article you've pointed me at, which suggests using <ref> tags to generate 'footnotes', and then having a separate 'reference' section afterwards. Take a look at WP:INCITE to see where I'm coming from. This is exactly the same way you'd footnote an arts or humanities essay. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bitchy Resting Face

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitchy Resting Face. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, what about using edit summary like "tit" and using words like "fucking" in actual talk page edits? Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How about not stalking me like I asked you to, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Who is stalking whom can be seen from the contributions itself. When did you first edit Assam or why are you here? Btw, Bangladeshis in India is on my watchlist, as I had nominated it for deletion. Shovon (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
BK, sorry for this, I know you are not my biggest fan but at this moment in time I have had to do two edit protect requests due to the disruption caused by yourman above and one other in their unilateral redirect of an article right at he start of a merger discussion, now I admit I am a dick but I am a dick who is right in this one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, that's clearly not optimal, but it's not an issue for the actual edit-warring noticeboard. Having said that, I don't think - and multiple threads at ANI seem to indicate this is consensus - that using "fucking" is necessarily an issue as long as it's not aimed at a particular editor (i.e. "you fucking ****"). Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it right for an article to be a redirect in a merger discussion? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not optimal either, but the history is there for editors to see. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It is bollocks and you know it, I had for some strange reason expected more from you. I really do waste my time here don't I. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it bollocks, but I'm going to suggest at ANI that it should probably be restored. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for being a knob yesterday, I was a bit langers and got angry. In my childish temper tantrum I had some subpages deleted, can you restore two of them for me please? One is topicon and the other is women in. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Those 2 pages are restored. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!

Thnaks a ton for solving this problem so quickly. The last thing I needed was to get deeply involved in such a minor issue. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Sarah-Jayne Gratton

The article was modified to reflect some of the feedback received and should comply with Wiki - would you be kind enough to review the article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconovate (talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter Horvath

You deleted the Peter Horvath article. The reason given for proposed deletion was the Horvath never played in a "fully" professional soccer league. I wish I had opposed its deletion. Looking at the log, I realized for some reason I didn't. That's my fault. However, there has been some contention regarding the professional nature of the first Major Indoor Soccer League (1978-1992). In case you run into this issue again, this is one of the better sources regarding the "fully" professional nature of that league. From 1982: "Minimum salaries were increased to $2,000 a month."[1] That amount, adjusted for inflation[2], gives us a monthly minimum salary equivalent to $4,800 today for every player in the league. I don't know how more "fully" professional you can get if every person in the league makes at least $4,800 per month. Thanks, Mohrflies (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I didn't have a huge amount of choice on that one - every comment was to delete the article. If you wish to have the article userfied so that you can improve it and fix the issues that led it to be deleted, please let me know. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rohan Mishra

Ten days ago, you commented on this page at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Is it still needed, or can the page be deleted? Please reply at my talk page — I'm bringing this up because someone else asked me about the page, and I couldn't give an informed answer. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"I think it would be a good idea if PBP and Joe disengaged from each other"

I think it would be a good idea if Joe stopped edit-warring (he's had two blocks for it; and this is the third AN3 against him in 10 days). I think it would be a good idea if you suggested as much to him on his talk page. I think it would be a good idea for you to monitor him to make sure he doesn't do it again. I think it would be a good idea if he got blocked the next time he got in an edit war. Make no mistake about it, there are real issues about Joe, none the least of which is his vitriol toward admins, and I had legitimate concerns coming to his talk page. He was dismissive of them, suggesting a lack of competence pbp 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion, re:canvassing/AfD

You mentioned another user there. I had already started looking at that. There is a backlog though. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

HighKing

Your closure of that ANI report is unwise at best, abusive at worst. Ample evidence of wrong doing has been provided, maybe not with respect to the BI sanction (but even that is not clear cut, given it is meant to be broadly construed), but definitely in the sense that these edits are clearly the same terminology policing behaviour that led to that sanction, but on a slightly different BI related term. Action is clearly warranted. Archived or not, as I said, I am not going to let this lie, I will be informing Cailil when he returns. In addition to sanctioning Highking, I expect he will want to take issue with you disrespecting him by completely ignoring all the effort he went to in detailing exactly what is wrong with HighKing's behaviour, and what he should be avoiding. Who I am is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not HighKing is ignoring those warnings and engaging in the beahviour Cailil described as being not wanted here. He even made that exact point to HighKing - while Cailil has sympathy with the so called harassment he often claims to be suffering as a way of avoiding sanctions for making these edits, Cailil was crystal clear on the point that who reports him, or even just the mere presence of suspect accounts in any of these reports/disputes, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he will act on any poor behaviour he observes from HighKing. I know he has previously expressed frustration at seemingly being the only admin here who is prepared to deal with HighKing, and I can see why with actions like this. Your closure of the section simply because of who the complainents are has only one effect - rewarding HighKing for bad edits. It's really no skin off my nose, is it? If I am a banned user, do you think archiving that discussion will have any effect on me? Or if I am not banned but this is just not my main account, then do you think archiving the section is going to change whatever reason I might have for not posting there with my main account? Of course not. The only thing it achieves is to remove from sight as an immediate issue. Which, given the fact Cailil was at pains to point out that HighKing's poor behaviour stretches back to 2008, is not a good thing for Wikipedia. You're an admin. You're expected to deal with long term problems, not sweep them under the carpet for wholly irrelevant reasons. If HighKing were ever to end up at arbitration for example, do you think he would escape sanction for persistent WP:TE behaviour, simply because other people involved were not following some completely unrelated rule like WP:SOCK? Of course not. Hopefully you can at least appreciate that as an admin, you being the person who maintains that cycle of WP:TE, is not only bad for Wikipedia, it's a form of laxity that really isn't excused by who I may or may not be. It also had the material effect of me not being able to correct Murray on a basic point of fact, meaning the archive now has errors in it, which I am sure is not the intent of that facility. Archive or no archive, at the very least, if, or more likely when, Cailil sanctions HighKing for those edits, I expect you to hold your hands up and admit your failure to do your duty as an admin in this case. Anything less will simply fall well below the expected standards of admins on Wikipedia. Anyway, I've probably spent far too long typing a post that you will most likely just ignore and delete, so goodbye for now. Zoombox21 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • 1. If you think I haven't sanctioned HighKing in the past, I'd suggest you look at his block log.
  • 2. You're obviously not a new user (neither is the IP), so why hide the issue? It wouldn't make any difference to the complaint - indeed, it'd probably add more gravitas to it.
  • 3. I can't actually see a diff showing that HighKing has violated his ban on removing BI from an article. If you can actually show evidence of that, the complaint would be valid.
  • 4. If Cailil does sanction HK for those edits, that's his call. But I can't see a criteria for doing so at this time. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
To repeat what I'd already said at ANI, I am not alleging a topic ban breach, except perhaps under the "broadly construed" wording. I am stating that, based on the manner of this series of reverts on The Automobile Association [3][4][5][6], followed by this 'rewrite', and based on the fact that HighKing has yet to make any associated comment at Talk:The Automobile Association, instead choosing to treat this as an issue of "vandalism", HighKing has inarguably ignored the warnings Cailil gave him when he re-enacted the BI topic ban about his future conduct. Those can still be seen on his own talk page under the "Removals of the term British Isles (again)" section on HighKing's talk page, so he has no excuse for not remembering them. You're going to have to read that whole thread to get the picture, but it shows quite clearly that Cailil was quite explicit in what he expected from HighKing going forward, in addition to simply adhering to the topic ban: he must stop edit warring and start discussing, he must stop this behaviour of policing terminology on Wikipedia, he must stop introducing (and maintaining by reverts) innacuracies (his altered version of the quote is not in the source, so is clearly innacurate). Basically, he was telling him to just go and find something completely different to do than this, because it is of no benefit to the project. What he has done instead, is just transfer his focus from policing usage of the term 'British Isles' on Wikipeda, to policing the term 'Republic of Ireland', while mainaining the same bad behaviours - edit warring, lack of discussion, misrepresentation of sources, misuse of guidelines/policy, etc, etc. As an administrator, the onus is on you to step in and stop it. Five years is long enough to be still getting away with this sort of WP:TE in the way you have so far allowed him to in this case. You need to block HighKing now until he gives cast iron assurances he understands why Cailil wrote those things on his talk page, and tells you precisely how he proposes to avoid it in future. That's it. As far as evidence goes, short of me pulling out direct quotes of what Cailil said to HighKing, I don't see what more you need to see, to do what is required of you. Zoombox21 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. At this point, I'm interested to see what Cailil thinks, so I'm going to ping him. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

Can you please help clue a user in @Talk:Sarasota Chalk Festival? Werieth (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

message not recieved

Share and enjoy. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Just saying thanks for the heads up on the HighKing stuff--Cailil talk 21:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

TransVannian again in an altercation

Hello the User:TransVannian has been again in a dispute but this time it's the not he who is at fault. i am talking about Talk:2013 Latakia offensive According to his comments the IP adress editor called the rebels as scums and argued that the artcile does not use pro-rebel sources. The IP address user says a different thing that SOHR is biased in favour of rebel propaganda. TransVannian did not agree and the unregistered user then made a serious personal attack by calling him "insane and a rebel's dog" and "promoting rebel propaganda". I request you to look in this disruptive behavior of the IP address user. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

TransVannian

Time to revoke talk-page access? Personal attacks, a repetition of the behaviour that saw them blocked, and I don't buy the "I won't return" argument for a second, given their other statements. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Let's see how they react to my latest comment. I won't have any qualms about turning the talkpage off if they don't respond this time. We're hardly asking for anything excessive. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Black Kite. Frankly your act of revoking TransVannian access to his talk page is completely irresponsible. The user has made no personal attacks and he has the right to quit if he wants to. We are no one to say anything in this. Also he is right that you had done nothing while The Banner insulted him. Here is a comment of The Banner on TransVannian's talk page, "Another fairytale, Transvannia. Or is this just a dream?" Also after Transvannian complained about this The Banner said that, "Where do I say that you are dreaming?". Clearly The Banner is contradicting his own statement here and is being disruptive. Also if you might remember that he will not continue to edit the article 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He clearly says that he will only edit it once he is unblocked. However The Banner falsely accuses him that he is going to use a sockpuppet. This amounts to personal attack. I don't have any sympathy for TransVannian but I do have a problem with other users lying and going unpunished for their wrong deeds. I think you should immediately re-grant TransVannian access to his talk page and at the very least give The Banner a warning. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"He clearly states he will only edit it once he is unblocked". And that's the problem. I gave him plenty of opportunities to state that he would leave the article alone and he refused to do so. He's wasted anough editors' time so far, I didn't see the point in continuing it. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, to say TransVannian hasn't made any personal attacks is unbelieveable. He's attacked people quite frequently, either generally targeting users, or specifically targeting individuals. And The Banner was stating that they thought they were dreaming, not that TransVannian was - although it's certainly not hard to misinterpret that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see actually anywhere in the "August 2013" section of his talk page where he has personally insulted anyone and besides it looks like other users keep on adding "fuel to the fire". Rather than arguing with him or revoking his access you should have stopped talking and moved on to other articles. Then he would have been not able to do anything. What done is done. He cannot add the name since the consensus is against it. Also there's something called "not punish them till they are guilty". Atleast until he would have really inserted the name again I don't think it was right to infinitely block him. I think you should have waited. But revoking his access to talk page is going too far. Also I am still wondering why you have not done anything about the personal insult made by The Banner. I don't see anywhere where TransVannian has made such a serious insult as The Banner has. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I was pointing at a part of my archives written by TransVannian and was asking of the existence of that was real or a dream. That he and you see that as an insult is your problem. The Banner talk 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Kahn John, you're completely and utterly wrong when you say that he had to have reinstated the name before being indefinitely blocked - particularly as you used the word "infinitely", which is incorrect. He had contributed NOTHING to the encyclopedia for a month, instead focussing on pushing his POV. He editwarred, he attacked users frequently, he flouted guidelines and he made up his own policies. He was a massive timesink, and for all your complaints about continuing the drama, that is exactly what you are doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well if I have misunderstood you The Banner then I apologize. There was probably no way I could have known anything what happened at your talk page earlier since I am just an uninvolved user here. If I am wrong then I'm deeply sorry, hope you don't mind. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You could have read the links before you came up with accusations. The Banner talk 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Which links? KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Help requested.

Hi Black Kite. You and I had some interaction a couple of years ago and I formed the impression you were an advocate of fair play. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to look at a situation I find myself in now where another editor is calling for an indefinite ban on me over a disagreement concerning plagiarism? The request for the ban is here but is very influenced by discussion which have taken place here. I'm going to ask Cailil too. Whatever your decision is thank you for reading this. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

SOS has also contacted me and EdJohnston on this matter. SOS you are running the risk of "admin shopping" at this point--Cailil talk 17:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Very sorry Cailil. I wasn't sure if you had your Wikipedia hat on this week. I was quite open about approaching three admins, thinking it was the right thing to do - and in a bit of a panic. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Black Kite, I withdraw my request for help. Cailil is back and he has sorted it out. He's probably told you anyway but it's a courtesy to let you know. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

"I think not"
Thank you for solving conflict by suggesting practical solutions and pointing out limits precisely, repeating: you are anawesome Wikipedian(12 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 215th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Joefromrandb

Can you please take a look here and tell me if you think he's edit warring now? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Now he's edit warring at my talk page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page, Black Kite says they will be out of town until 8/21. You might try asking another Admin to look into it. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

Can you please comment on User talk:Subtropical-man The user isnt getting the point I am trying to make. Werieth (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please use your clue stick on User talk:Bardrick? the user is using excessive non-free files that fail 1,3,8 and refusing to discuss it. Werieth (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite - see my response to your bad editing on that weaselly list you left for me - Bardrick. Another message left on yr points list - Bardrick. (& As for yr little pal's lie above - I didn't refuse to discuss it, I went out of my way to do the opposite in the face of non-stop threats from him of "blocking me", evasiveness & power-trip attitude from the outset, clearly knowing you were on call).

Azad Kashmir

Just in case you are not watching Talk:Azad Kashmir, I have the feeling that the issue is not yet resolved. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Kubrick‎‎

Can you give your two cents there please? Werieth (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove my comment?

Your edit [7]. JOJ Hutton 15:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It was probably an edit conflict. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It was. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking

[8][9] The decision should have been made by an uninvolved and unconflicted admin who did not participate in the discussion. It's pretty sad to see you do this; you know better. You can revert yourself, of course. Risker (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think it was the right thing to do. I note Future Perfect was about to do the same. I simply can't see the point in blocking two hard working uncontroversial admins for doing what they thought was the correct thing at the time. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would have said the same thing to FPAS: if you're involved in the discussion, you shouldn't be taking admin action in relation to that discussion. There's no difference between what you did and you making a deletion decision on an AFD where you'd commented - and that would have been reverted in a heartbeat. Risker (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I wasn't "involved" - I simply told you that you were wrong, and then took the obvious next step. If I'd been involved in editing the article and supported one of the edits that they were blocked for, then that's involved. Anyway, let's see what the consensus is to reblock. I, personally, am a little annoyed that you did this as one of the few members of ArbCom I have a lot of respect for. I also note that JumFBleak hadn't even seen your "warning", which makes your block invalid on the spot. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • What's an admin doing editing a fully protected page without reading the talk page to understand the issues? It's surprising how often those "uncontroversial" edits turn out to be controversial after all. And once you've participated in the discussion, even to tell someone that you disagree with their actions, you need to not take any admin actions in relation to that discussion. That's been SOP for a long time. I get that you're annoyed. I also get that this is becoming an increasingly problematic issue with administrators; I just got a lot more messages about this case than I have others, probably because of the heightened visibility of the article. It is a recurrent problem on protected articles, and it has definitely been getting worse over time. A couple of years ago, this level of activity in relation to a protected article would have led to desysops, and I don't think that's necessary. Risker (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm hopeless with edit notices and the like, so what about drafting up one that says "NOTICE TO ADMINISTRATORS: This article is fully protected and should not be edited unless you have read the talk page of the article and any relevant discussions relating to the protection, AND

  • the edit removes article content that is an obvious and flagrant violation of the BLP policy
  • there is a clearcut consensus developed over time on the talk page of the article to make the edit
  • the content removed consists solely of spam or obvious vandalism.

Do not make any other changes to the content of the article, including MOS-related changes, without obtaining consensus on the article talk page.

That could be tweaked. You up for making that up, which can be added to the few fully protected articles that we have at any given time? Risker (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Risker, I do not believe that your proposal reflects project consensus, just as I disagree with (some) of your blocks. WP:FULL states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." Uncontroversial means different things to different people apparently, but I have always interpreted it (in conjunction with WP:IAR) to include grammatical and style changes that are not opposed for a non-wikiphilosophical reason. NW (Talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is in this case that edits that appeared to be uncontroversial (the date format one, for example) later turned out to be so. I admit, I'd have quite happily made that change as well thinking it not unusual at all. So for some very contentious articles, perhaps it is best to have that unambiguous warning. So, anyway, I've created Template:Fullyprotected which I have also added to the Chelsea Manning editnotice. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, but those can be reverted if actually contentious. Jimofbleak's edits though—it's just silly to prevent that. Or someone fixing an instance of "Manning" being written as "Maning". Or any number of other types of uncontroversial edits. NW (Talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well then, the proposer shouldn't have any trouble obtaining consensus on the talk page, should they? Admins should never edit a fully protected page without being fully cognizant of the issues that are related to the protection, and that means a thorough read of the talk page, and a good reason to act *at that particular moment* (as opposed to at the end of protection). Respecting the community process for these very limited and infrequent situations should take precedence over whether or not an emdash should replace an endash. It's been a long time since you weren't able to edit a protected page: try to remember how incredibly infuriating it was to non-admins to see admins editing as though they owned the article, half the time doing it wrong. Risker (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Non-admin here, and if I saw someone correcting a typo on a fully-protected page, I'd be happy - the only thing that would annoy me is that I couldn't do it, and had to wait for another user to do so, leaving the fail in view for longer. Same with reverting to a version before an edit war. The day we have to gain consensus for correcting the non-contentious surname of a BLP subject in just one place is the day Wikipedia will truly die. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes the spelling of a word/term/name is (one of) the reason(s) for protection, so they aren't necessarily obvious. How do we work around that, and not wind up more or less where we are now? Perhaps making it more clear that editnotices should be used liberally for such things? Risker (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Common sense. Common sense would dictate that fixing "Maning" was a good thing, regardless of the protection on the page. This really, really shouldn't need a big discussion, or any heavy-handed sanctions. Also, IAR is applicable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of those admins who edited through protection on that article in the last 24 hours thought they were using common sense, including those who pagemove-warred, and those who edit-warred. The objective here is to really really get people to not IAR, because IAR and full protection are an extremely poor match. Arbcom has desysopped people who edit and page move through protection before, and the fact that other editors can't get in the middle of admin braincramps actually makes it more likely that someone will do something dumb, but which made sense to them at the time. How hard is it to put up "Please fix spelling of "Maning" in second sentence of para 4"? Risker (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm tempted to agree with that. No need to make it too complex. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastasia International

Thanks for taking some interest in the Anastasia International article. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did you realise that the user who's reverting my edits is currently being investigated for both being a sockpuppet here and also for a conflict of interest here? The version that the page has been locked on is the version the user has been trying to keep, with citation and verification issues. As you'll be able to see on the talk page, this guy has no interest in improving the article. He's yet to make a single edit on the page since 10th August other than reverting my edits. If you go through the diffs, you'll see I'm changing most of the versions in line with the talk page, and all that is happening is he finds something new to moan about. Instead of working on that version, he simply reverts back to the version that has no improvements what so ever. Any advice on this would be appreciated. Verdict78 (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I will certainly keep an eye on that SPI. I've been watching the page for a while (it was me that wiped all the uncited material out of it a few months back, if you look at the history). Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just seen the edits, I thought I recognised the username. The issue is, I was trying to fix the citation issues, as there are quite a few on the page. It's hard to do that when the page is locked to admins only and your not an admin :). However, I'll discuss more with Alexis418, and lets see how the SPI turns out. Verdict78 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're aware, Alexis418 has been making several accusations against myself and others - see my talk page and WP:COIN. --Rschen7754 20:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, Rschen7754 botched an earlier investigation on Sockpuppets related to the original creators of the first Anastasia page. Hence I have spoken strongly against Verdict78 because many other editors who actually know about this company are now all banned due to Rschen error! Look, I have much better things to do than to help you guys keep the Russian mafiosos from using your site to defraud people. I won't be offended if any of you admins want to ban me, seriously, enough already, you now know who Verdict78 is and after you can him, Anastasia will send the next one. They will keep coming back. Black Kite seems like a good chap so Rschen77554 why the need to try to trick him into doing your dirty work. Rschen, just man up, ban me and enough already. Alexis418 (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_47&oldid=1140175580"