User talk:Black Kite/Archive 51

Remark
Hi Black Kite, I didn't want to clutter up the ArbCom page or make a big deal of it, but I noticed you said: "his clearly entrenched minority POV on some subjects ends up causing problems." What happens when there's a clearly entrenched majority POV at Wikipedia? It seems to just sail along without sanctions or the like, prevailing more and more often as it succeeds in getting people like North topic-banned. Do you think so? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between minority and majority, and "fringe". Perhaps I should have used that phrasing instead. Certainly the example I am familiar with (Homophobia) featured North arguing ad nauseam for a very fringe view on the topic (he was effectively trying to claim that the article shouldn't be called Homophobia, because it was pejorative).  That sort of thing gets very tiring very quickly especially when there is a clear consensus that it isn't going to happen. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've actually been thinking about getting involved in that topic. I have always taken an interest in BLPs, and a lot of them state as fact that so-and-so is homophobic.  It seems to be the current scarlet letter.  The term is kind of screwy, kind of like saying that the US was Nazi-phobic during WWII (again with the Nazis!).  I don't think the US was ever Nazi-phobic, more like Nazi-opposing or Nazi-condemning.  Anyway, it will be interesting to see what ArbCom does with North.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem there is that Homophobia is the common name used by pretty much every reliable source for anti-homosexual feeling or statements. As a citation-based encyclopedia, we have to reflect that, and we certainly can't ignore it on the basis of semantics. Yes, using the -phobia suffix is inherently problematic, but we have to reflect common usage, not what we would like common usage to be.  See also: Xenophobia, for example. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point about xenophobia. Something for me to think about.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

cheerleading girls
Do you have the Cheerleaders page?!?! The "User:Black Kite/Cheerleaders" page I really want. I heard it has girls in it! (really i need extra info on them) 67.82.89.253 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor review/Cwmhiraeth
Hi Black Kite. If you are still acting as the independent arbiter on this, could I please suggest that you wind it up soon? I make no pretence to neutrality on this, since I see the whole thing as the malicious hounding of a contributor who went to ANI to complain of harassment, but we are getting to the stage after more than a month where we are starting to go round again (me included). I appreciate that this is a thankless task, and you will upset some people whatever you decide, but I think that a decision now would be timely. Thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it backwards
User:HMWD - the problem here is with User:AbelM7 that is removing sourced material and adding badly and unsourced info. Can you look at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- Moxy (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, i need a deleted article
Can you give me the "User:Black Kite/Cheerleaders" page to see? I looked at the original version through Cheerleader2's filter log and it doesn't contain much info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.89.253 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Lokie Dokie
Before anyone unblocks this guy, could someone check out the SPI I raised earlier, please?

Thanks,

AlexTiefling (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef, fairly obvious sock (and even if by an amazing coincidence it isn't, the WP:NOTHERE behaviour is enough for an indef anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientists
Thanks for protecting the article. I appreciate your advice to leave the category alone. The ethical dilemma I faced, of course, was that WP:BLP was telling me I was supposed to remove the category immediately. That seemed to be my duty as a Wikipedian... StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, and it's a difficult question, but with the CfD going on at this moment it would seem to be the prudent thing to do. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

71.239.82.39
This is the logged out, IP account of Leprof 7272. What you found was not simple vandalism by a random IP editor but a fierce content dispute that spilled over to a discussion on AN/I. Leprof said he didn't want to fight any longer and would no longer be editing that article so I don't see the point of a block for vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor was blocked for WP:3RR, not vandalism. Although repeatedly adding unsourced info to a BLP is also grounds for blocking. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See comment below, also in response to Neil, with regard to the disingenuousness of his claim that in any real sense I was guilty of "adding unsourced info to a BLP". His oversimplification intends to create a false impression and so, is game playing with honesty. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting tedious. If you repeatedly revert to add back unsourced material to an article then you are taking responsibility for adding that material, especially if other editors point out problems. If I take out "Arsenal is the worst football team in the world" from an article, and you revert me, then you are taking responsibility for that material being in the article. It does not matter if you didn't add it there in the first place. -- Neil N  talk to me  13:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a problem with reverting. And this particular dispute over a BLP is a mess. Old material, that he didn't add, was being challenged for being unsourced. I think the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not fully sourced although, I agree, this is a goal. But if you randomly check any BLP and I'm sure you will find statements that are not cited. This was a question of whether to preemptively delete old material that was unsourced or leave it and let editors find references to support these sections. In theory, any statement that is challenged can be removed but, in practice, there is a lot of biographical, unsourced information existing on Wikipedia which is left alone because it is not controversial.
 * What was unfortunate about this was that LeProf 7272 was trying to improve this article and somehow, it attracted the attention of other editors and then this entire thing exploded. He didn't react in a constructive way but I can imagine the frustration of making dozens of edits to an article over the course of a day and then have an editor unfamiliar with the subject come in and blank sections to what was a work-in-process. But at this point, it seems like the problem isn't the article but working peacefully with other editors which is an acquired skill. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's a lot of content on Wikipedia that is unsourced and left alone. However once material is challenged, a source needs to be found, especially in BLPs. This version is pretty disgraceful for a BLP. A couple other points, LeProf 7272 made it clear he was expecting the original editors of the unsourced text to come in and add references. You and I know that's very, very, unlikely. Preventing the removal of uncited text and expecting others to find references is not constructive. Finally, LeProf 7272 has said he didn't write the original material. That's true, but he kept reverting back to it. If you keep on doing that, even after others have pointed out problems, then you are taking responsibility for that material and bearing the consequences of adding it back in. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neil chose a version of the article to link to that was not yet my final, to make the case he acted in the article's best interest in intervening—glossing over the fact that "not dave" at one point apologized for jumping the gun by not checking Talk, or the Edit history before his initial reversion (see ). Neil also breezes past two points that speak to his objectivity and editorial ethics: The reverted article of his and "not dave"'s was itself a shambles; the rapid revert deleted a section heading (mucking up the TOC), deleted a paragraph that actually did have citations, etc. Look to the article version at time of my block, and then follow Neil's edits over the day I was blocked. You will see that to continue the deceptive repositioning of the article and his actions, Neil subsequently did two things. While I was blocked, he quietly made edits to un-muck the article (edits I had called for, in resisting the reversion that created them), and he quietly began searching for citations to place where I had inserted "citation needed" tags (so that he would not have to fulfill the early, capricious, and short-sighted approach of (to quote) "If gutting the article is required, then so it shall be" (!) that he and "not dave" had initiated (see ). At no time during this Le Prof-is-blocked editorial spree of Neil's—on an article he had shown zero interest in, theretofore—does he write a new Talk section to explain the goal and substance of his flurry of edits. I encourage any who might in future have further interactions with this editor, to review and archive this information, so that there is recourse if the same duplicitous, win-at-all-costs behavior surfaces again.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And you still don't get it. Adding masses of citation needed tags is not the way we improve BLPs, especially if you expect others to find the cites for you as you did. BLP material, once removed, should stay out until a proper cite can be found. If you spent a quarter of time looking for sources as you did complaining and announcing your impending retirement the article would be much better off. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My coming to this page was to right the wrong of you misleading people in a time when I could not speak for myself. And I get both "it", and you, sad fellow. The mucked state of the article after your and "not dave"'s massive reversion, your three Huff Post cites and other tidying while I was blocked (versus the careful nice work of Ninja, since)—these all make clear the quality you propose to bring to articles when you fly in. But continue to deride me, my retiring, etc. in one breath while speaking of complaining in the next. mdr. Mate, could not care less. Your behavior makes clear your ethical compass—take only the casting of aspersions through partial tellings of the story here, when I couldn't reply; this is  the only real, needed case in point. No, what you dismiss as complaining, I call setting the record straight, making the rough places smooth. Now, I will do what I can, in ways more productive that bickering with you, to ensure that what long-term value there will be here at WP, will not be clouded by the antics of win-at-all-costs folks like you.  Cheers, bye.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * LeProf seems to be a fairly new user. Did anyone explain to them or warn them about WP:3RR rule and the consequences of breaking it? <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like they weren't. They kept on threatening to go to admins they knew so I assumed they were somewhat experienced. However they did revert three times after I gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The "they and them" is an obfuscation; Neil had been told, and Black Kite made clear, that there was no sock issue: I had consistently put forth that Le Prof was Le Prof, as signed, whether logged in or unlogged and just penning in the identification. The "adding unsourced content" is likewise dissembling, as Liz perceived, because I added no unsourced material. I simply reorganized what had long been there, and added tags calling for citations. It was only through the reversion that undid my hours of work, that I was placed in a position to "add unsourced content" (by reverting his and "not dave"'s muck of a deletion, thereby returning the reorganized, tagged material). Likewise, the reference to "revert three times after" is another self-serving simplification with regard to what I was doing and why (see foregoing), and with regard to the fact that "not dave" had reverted first, I second, etc., and that the reversion numbers were run up only because Neil took up the baton from "not dave" in order to win the battle. This dissembling is classic of the way Neil chooses to represent the matter, and himself. All utter smoke and mirrors, to hide the real mistakes made. It is no longer worth time of day, or any further comment. Last word to whoever needs it. I don't anymore. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "They" and "them" are gender-neutral pronouns. I would suppose you wouldn't like to be referred to as "it"? I've had my say to your other points elsewhere. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  05:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, how much actual time did Black Kite spend, truly considering this matter before he did the original block? Admittedly unavailable much due to other competing claims on time, and unable to engage other thoughtful editors here, regarding the block…

And is the argument that individual peer editors really can get to the heart of a matter, as quickly as they make these serious, other-impacting decisions? Or is it that there is a fair bit of unconcern if one gets a few wrong, along the way? In this case, I had been editing, earnestly, as a scholarly editor, for hours, first at the site of an unfortunate Iranian woman detained for the death of an assailant during her assault, then at a celebrity BLP site (for this celebrity had take an interest in the poor girl on death row). In both cases, the only interest was to quickly move the articles in the direction of better referencing, and therefore better quality content.

Admin Bushranger later disinterred the fact that the warring for which I was harshly judged had ended long before the block was placed. (Harshly, yes: I was blocked for 31 hours, a mere pittance to those taking the action I am sure, but for me, one third of my available break time for public service this spring.)

A face-value read of the Admin page where the matter was elevated—including its history—show the matter of my violations was closed (Admin discussion closed), then reopened by one annoyed peer editor, when I placed "citation needed" tags in other sections of the celebrity article. I had apparently not learned my lesson. I had not gone away—though why should I, I was the sole editor, and Talk contributor at that article for days, if not months, before the Huggle-driven fly-by editor perceived my efforts as vandalism, and reverted me without a look at Talk, or a query to me of what I was up to. No, though I ceased the reverting hours before, I had not departed the article. I needed to be taught a lesson. The Admin page was reopened (see, "Requesting backup"), and the question was raised, literally, in response to adding "citation needed" tags, and despite substantial explanatory Talk—"He's back again. Anyone else think that this warrants a block? Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)". It was long after the reverting had died down, and only when this additional annoyance bothered "not dave", that Black Kite jumped in to redress the past, long quiet wrong.

This and many nuances of this case—perceived in passing by Liz, but missed, denied, or otherwise glossed over by most others—these facts of the matter were beyond what could be expected from those issuing or reviewing the block.

In the end, this whole matter was a travesty of common sense and good judgment, for various reasons. Curiously, there was an earlier occasion that this same thing had happened to me; the first was a comparable outside-editor-swoop-in based on an electronic ping, and likewise a disinterested editor (i.e., one with no longstanding interest in the article at hand) misinterpreted earnest scholarly-directed editing for vandalism… except in that earlier case, the whole matter was turned on its head. There, I was faulted for wanting unreferenced material to be removed more quickly (!)—a section-wide "citations needed" tag had been in place for four years and I pushed for deletion of that personal essay section, and re-stubbing the section's content. (Here, the opposite: I resisted insistence to religiously follow the WP, and delete all unreferenced material immediately (since it was of so much more recent vintage, appeared reasonable in its content, was otherwise innocuous and clearly not libelous.)

My opinion: at the core of the recent and the earlier matter are two issues. First, there is the ability of individuals to use digital tools to detect and take action when there is an appearance of impropriety. This is a fine capability, the need for it clear, but if used injudiciously it creates tremendous content and policy problems. (Technology allows us to do things; it does not inform whether we should do them or not, in each particular situation.) This is to say, I am not questioning the technology, fundamentally, or the fact that it holds great potential to serve Wikipedia. I am questioning what I would call its analytically superficial application, and therefore clearly capricious and injudicious use.

Second, and relatedly, there is the matter of balancing the ability to see potential problems, and the harder, often effort-intensive matter of analyzing, of discerning (a) whether the problems detected using the computational tools (in this case, Huggle and Twinkle) are real and substantial, and really do require intervention from a disinterested party, and then, also discerning, (b) if intervention is required, what the best and most judicious course might be to proceed. This is to say, there exists a challenge to apply easily used tools in the correct manner, so (as I have analogized before):

I won't argue the actual recent blocking case again, except to suggest that I was beaten by a process focused on limited principles, and not on any more complex balance of policies or aims. In this case, those editors sweeping in, in response to Huggle, were admittedly ignorant of prior editing and Talk, and were therefore uncivil and disrespectful to an earnest editor. The history of the article never became a part of discussion, the recent Talk was similarly dismissed, and so the intent of a sincere editor for the article's improvement was ignored. The whole of the matter became about counting reversions (with the final appeal-denying Admin acknowledging that from his perspective, it diid not matter that the original, Huggle-prompted reversion was likely in error, or that there were clear extenuating WP policy violations besides the one driving the reversion count and block).

On the reversion matter, in retrospect, I admit ignorance. But I actually am satisfied to have been so, because I learned a clear lesson I would have missed, had I been as savvy as the two fly-by editors that I battled. Even had I understood (as "not dave" clearly did) that in order to win a disagreement expressed, first by his reversion, then by mine, etc. in such a system as this, I needed to quickly find compatriots to join me on my side of the reverting—I probably would not have done so. I have always thought the point here was to lead others to a carefully constructed consensus based on the article, and its aims and history. I understand now that this is little more than naive silliness.

While to state this so boldly may seem jaded, all evidence points to the fact that anyone reverting another's edits is making a firm statement based on convictions, and is rarely turned away from their initial impulse to revert (more on the evidence, later). This appears especially true, when, by Huggle or other means, the apparent violating editor is perceived—however superficial the analysis and discernment undergirding the perception—to be a vandal or other policy violator. The point simply becomes wining the reversion war.

Not to slow down. Not to consider, with any depth the Talk, article history, or wider issues at play. Once the battle has begun, the point is simply to prevail. I would love to see hard data to indicate otherwise. My own experience, the recent PLOS analysis of Wikipedia conflict and related studies and commentary (e.g., ), other research I have been looking at—all seem to indicate that once a disagreement has begun, it becomes irrational, with the individual or side most savvy in Wiki operations and procedures (and best networked to engage in fights) the hands down favorite to prevail. I would love to be wrong, but I have no empirical evidence to support the idea, here, that anything other than wikinetwork-enabled might, makes right.

What makes the travesty of common sense and good judgment clearest, is that the celebrity article, as of this date and time, continues with "citation needed" tags—unreferenced material remains in that article—the principle reason being another senior editor came in and has been persuasive in getting folks to lighten up with the "delete it all" approach. But this is really no matter, because the conflict attracted an editor with a commitment to humility and quality, and that editor is moving the article in the direction I had hoped it might go. And the other two editors, well, they really weren't very fundamentally interested in the substance of the article as the article (versus article as concept, or article as policing opportunity), anyway.

Of the outcomes of this, two are worth mentioning. I have finally decided to leave, and will do this as soon as the issues I think are critical are expressed, and the backlog of text I have created are moved into their respective articles. (Sorry, Neil and "not dave", that I cannot leave any faster for you.) But after that, I have found a startup with educational connections, and I can do my service with them, working toward more reliable modes of open, non-commerce-driven, non-gameable internet search. And at the same time we will be asking, how one might structure an online encyclopedia with fully reliable and verifiable information, where consensus on content does not have final word, and policing and related drama are nonexistent? Both are intriguing enough—asking, what, after Google? and, what, after Wikipedia?, for history makes clear that ultimately both will be but one blink before another—to be more worthy of the limited minutes I can spend on informational activities such as this. For as a colleague pointed out, "No potentially therapeutic molecules will enter testing through the wiki markup language, no student will be trained in our practical art of medichem, no real scientific trainee's confidence inspired or arrogance checked, through public service time spent there. This [brick and mortar chemistry training] is the real deal, the other [WP public service editing] just play, really." No, the opportunity cost of interacting with injudicious, and I would say, broadly surreal site-police, overzealous as they are, at times, and in opposing directions—this makes inconceivable any further continuing work for me here.

The second outcome is just as likely to fail (as most risky enterprises do): I will try to see that the right senior folks, at the centers that study WP, in the administrative echelons at WP that are usually above the day-to-day reversions, blocks, etc., begin to ask the question of whether the system is truly functioning as intended. When one crowd-sources justice, does it work? I think the answer, clearly, is no. We will see if I can persuade any others of this.

Cheers to Liz, Ravensfire, Bushranger, and others who have either expressed a semblance of thoughtfulness and balance, or who have privately let me know of similar fly-by experiences. Wish you all the best, if you remain. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request(Fae)
An arbitration amendment request(Fae), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

CSD U2
Hello User:Black Kite. I note you recently moved your user and user talk pages to User:Black kite and User talk:Black kite, respectively. I understand you did this to protest or ridicule a recent decision concerning the capitalization of bird names. You should know, however, that as User:Black kite is not a registered account, you cannot host your user and user talk pages here. That is, these pages meet criteria for speedy deletion U2. If you'd like to continue using these pages then perhaps the best thing to do would be to register this account and openly announce that it's a doppleganger. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to create that account (even for an admin, as I am) because account names with different capitalisations are not possible. Also, CSD#U2 allows for "redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage" which means that's no problem. Thank you. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this page isn't a redirect, so unfortunately it doesn't fall under that exception. If you made this page a redirect to User talk:Black Kite, then it would.  I suppose another option would be to change your username. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)