This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkness_Shines_reported_by_User:Smsarmad_.28Result:_.29. Got a mess it seems. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Further to this AN3 report you dealt with, you might be better off semi-protecting the page, since there's a new IP making exactly the same edit as the blocked IP. The IP is actually community banned editor HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive for lots of similar IPs and a mention or two of Gaddafi and the Gaffadi/wig line was being pushed by the last sock listed there. When it comes to his rapidly changing dynamic IPs SPI is usually a waste of time, so semi-protection will be a better way of dealing with him. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Done, for a month. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I was surprised by the fact that I was blocked after the user Gun Powder Ma reported me to the 3RR noticeboard. Why was I surprised? Because the diffs he reported are not fairly used, since I made a series of edits and I didn't "delete" his edits, but I just putted the paragraph on the right section [1] (I deleted the quotes and only let the reference, as it is the common use on WP). Unfortunately, this was dishonestly reported by Gun Powder Ma, and, as I see, you didn't verify the whole thing, especially the entire history of the article Morocco [2]... and if only you did so, you will clearly see that the first diff concerns the revert of an unilateral editing about a highly polemic content (related to Western Sahara), that I didn't undo after a second revert by Gun Powder Ma, and that the main problematic user is the one who reported me, as that he is still engaged in an edit-war with other users about the same problem (POV) [3][4][5][6]

By the way, on my two previous blockings I recognized my fault, but this time I think that it wasn't mine. If the explanations that I gave above are satisfactory, then my blocking isn't justified, but if they are not, Gun Powder Ma should also be blocked since he is the main edit-warrior on this article, not me, and that the fact that he 'reported me first' doesn't make me the one to blame.

Thanks in advance,
user:Omar-Toons --41.92.95.190 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, "I was right" isn't a good enough reason to keep reverting; and you did revert five times. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not about be correct, wikipedia is an agenda website if you disagree with the agenda then you will need a network of friends on Wikipedia that will revert things for you. If don't have friends just make a sock puppet that is what most people do. I personally think its best just to contribute to better websites. Mantion (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Black Kite I contacted you some months ago to put back up the 10ticks page. There has still been no movement on this and you said it was on your to-do list. I would be grateful if you can get round to doing it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've done some of it. I'm struggling to find non-internet sources, though. Have you any knowledge of articles about 10ticks in newspapers, journals etc. ? Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• twelve months of edit warring and 50 uses of the "undo" tool that results in zero article improvement
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cliff Stanford
• User talk:Uncle G#Sanitizing a convicted crominal's efforts to portray blackmail as a public service
• some edit summaries

Would you, or your talk page watchers, care to venture an opinion? Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• At a first scan I would say that you are completely correct in what you said at BLP/N. I can't see any reason whatsoever why Stanford's edits are not BLP compliant - after all the scandal is comprehensively sourced and covered in Porter's own article. I see the problem has been dealt with now, however. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly suspect the following IP editor [7] to be Omar-Toons editing unlogged. He is serially reverting User:Gun Powder Ma [8] [9], with whom Omar-Toons was involved in disputes before you blocked him. Thank you, Athenean (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Is an extension of OT's block also in order? Athenean (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. Also done. Let me know if he pops up again. Ludicrously, his block would have run out in about ... 11 minutes from now. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Unbelievable. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm making substantial progress on my draft of a followup RFC to AAT, User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. The draft presently names you, along with the other two closing administrators for AAT, as a closer. Are you okay with that? If ArbCom were to accept the proposed RFC as a valid followup to AAT, would you be willing to participate in closing it? —chaos5023 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 8 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be no problem - however note I am on holiday from 15 to 22 August, so if the closing time falls in that time there may be a slight delay and you may wish to find someone else. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks! That window is no problem; the closing window in the current draft is 1 October to 7 October. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey do you remember any more detail about how Danny came up with this list? We're re-running the Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest over august and are discussing it on the talk page, and Danny is incommunicado... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - it was articles rated top-importance by a Wikiproject but assessed at B-class or below, I think. I presume someone ran a bot task or db query to dump the list out - I just formatted it. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting, so I suppose it could have missed some weird broad nebulous article....though none come to mind......Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, anything that hadn't been assessed by a Project would have been missed, that was mentioned at the time but it was given that it was the best way to compile a possible list of sub-standard articles. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and I've just found a pretty damned big one....errr.....Ed17's asked an interesting question at User_talk:Casliber#CORE_drive_editors. Maybe best to keep this all at Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest#Add_some_more_articles_for_consideration..Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

For unblocking me, I did report the IP to AIV straight away, I also requested page protection yesterday and again today. It all went a little pear shaped today I suppose :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for beating me to the unblock. Going into an edit war with a sock (even if exempt from 3RR) is a bit risky business. Solved .. for now (I'm sure the sock will be back etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing monitoring of Antiseptic Bloodbath. While I disagree with your decision to remove the page (I believe it did work under WP:Albums), I am working on the article in my sandbox, looking for more appropriate media references, etc. Hope to resubmit for consideration in the next few weeks and hope that whoever this user is doesn't get the article locked for when I do so. 5minutes (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry about that, any lock would just be to prevent the article returning in its current form; if it's been improved any admin would remove it. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected Jeton Neziraj, not realising that you had semi-protected it one minute earlier. I gave it one month more than you did. My guess is that you won't care about the extra month, but if you do then please feel free restore your protection length: I certainly regard it as wheel-warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't even notice, to tell you the truth. Might as well leave it at 2 months, it can always be taken off if the issue appears to have died down. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This AN3 thread should be put to sleep as well. Thanks for your help! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Black, I was about to place a warning but you beat me to it. This editor and Cwobeel are new users who are fixated on everthing Mitt Romney, hahaha. I'm thinking if they keep battling--page protection. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Kthimi në Shqipëri (talk · contribs)

You might want to take a closer look at this guy - edit warring and 3RR at Lorik Cana, close to it at other articles. GiantSnowman 10:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And not to mention obvious vandalism on all sides. Maybe we do not need any further requests. Just take a look. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kthimi në Shqipëri. GiantSnowman 11:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

no problem! thanks.--Neogeolegend (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So waiting till just outside the 24hr period is not editwarring? Nice to know. Can you let me know what I should do when edit warring continues? As you just effectively said should I report again you will try and get me topic banned. I honestly cannot believe that an editor constantly reverting in a SPS in support of highly contentious edits can get away with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, seriously. You gave five diffs there; the third one [10] is nothing more than a copyedit, the fourth is a self-revert and the fifth is 38 hours after the third, even if the third had been valid! Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Re Black Kite: Just a note, there are already community discretionary sanctions imposed on the India-Pakistan topic area. So next time you see drama, you don't have to bring it up on ANI. The framework is already there :) Mar4d (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I know. Which is probably a very good reason for you not to flirt with 3RR even if you don't technically break it. Black Kite (talk)

Btw, you were one of the admins commenting on this report [11], without getting anywhere in the discussion, this was removed yet again out of the blue with the same reason as before [12]... isn't it turning into a out of hands slow edit war even after the RFC was closed and consensus was to keep the text. Can you also check this out.. this was just kept with overwhelming consensus a month ago and DS has nominated it again.. this is plain harassment directed at creator. [13]. He has started a few RFCs tens of times to get consensus n his favour... it is irritating and wasting my time which I could use to create new articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! You seem like you've been pretty involved in the 2012 in UFC Events discussion for some time, so I wanted to get your opinion. It looks like there's a loose consensus in Talk:2012 in UFC events to split the article into three month increments to address size concerns, although we're still working on the specifics. My question is, do you see any policy issues with doing this? I just want to make sure we're not wasting a bunch of time on a format that's not going to work. Thanks! CaSJer (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that you shouldn't remove the otheruses tag ([14]), as there are many other uses of this term; indeed, this one isn't even the most viewed article, and Life on Mars should really be a dab page. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I meant to remove the "outdated" tag and I did not notice it was together with 'otherusers' on the same line. Thank you for catching that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page.
Message added 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks! Electric Catfish 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You can do that unilaterally now; they're part of WP:GS. I worked quite hard to bring those about lol. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who removed the section in question, your take on the arguments presented here would be appreciated. I agree the BOA bits are probably in the wrong place, and have added this elsewhere. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Wesley Mouse's talk page.
Message added 21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Wesley Mouse 21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why these images were removed from my sandbox without consulting me first. Isn't an editor's sandbox just that -- a sandbox for developmental purposes only? Several of the images removed were ones for which I personally had received explicit permission from the copyright holder to use on WikiPedia. I have a the email granting this permission if it's needed by anyone. This was explained in the licensing comments accompanying the images. The attribution requested by the copyright holder was provided exactly as specified. Some of these images were supplied with a caption that provided additional clarification/commentary relevant to the article. All of the images had free-use rationales. What specifically is your problem with these images? I'd appreciate an explanation. Thank you. Jburlinson (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NFCC#9 that I linked to in the summary. Non-free images are used as minimally as possible on Wikipedia and are therefore only allowed in articles and nowhere else - not on talk pages, Wikipedia pages, templates or userspace. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whats your problem? Are you an old fool who had nothing to do and came to wikipedia or what? Cant you see, the colours dont match of the parties, you are misleading millions of people because of that. Not even a single party colour matches in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.238.213 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I couldn't care less about the colours on the article - but then it wasn't me who reverted them, if you'd bothered to read the history of the article. But yes, you got me - that's exactly why I'm here, an old fool with nothing better to do. On the other hand, I'm not yet another sock of an indefinitely blocked user who has been edit warring on these articles for a long time. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I came across the edit-warring report on the two editors on the "Belle" Disney character, only because one of the editors had filed a (highly premature) request for arbitration that we are in the process of declining, and telling the editors to take it to the talkpage, etc. I couldn't help noticing, though, that as best I can tell, you blocked both of these editors for 3RR on this article about seven hours after the page was full-protected. I don't know whether you meant to do that.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I actually missed the protection part. Having said that, since both editors were on something like 7RR I don't think it's an entirely bad block on the "please don't do this again" front. But feel free to unblock them if you feel it'd be useful. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was forming some comments at WP:Articles for deletion/Magic Wand (software) but had an edit conflict with your closure. I think the (admittedly unsourced) content should be merged to Peachtree Software, per [15] (apparently a museum). Another ref I found is InfoWorld, 2 Apr 1984. The current direct is inappropriate because the Word claim is unverified in reliable sources. What do you think? Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. I've changed the redirect. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you close the EW case. I don't think it merits a block, and hopefully he will realize that people are watching him now and he will participate in BRD, instead of RRRRRRRRR (heh, pirate speak). Just my 2 cents. Thanks. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

	"I think not"
	Thank you for solving conflict by suggesting practical solutions and pointing out limits precisely, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (12 February 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite. The other night (or maybe day your time) you blocked 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) for its legal threats and trolling. Well one of the other IPs 216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs) used by this person just went live and posted another rant that violates NPA among other things. Since this isn't an AIV situation I am wondering what you think is the best place to report it. ANI, SPI or somewhere else. I know this stuff happens all the time and I could also just ignore it if that is what you think might be best. On the other hand it would also be nice of it stopped. Thanks for your time on leaving any suggestions that you might have. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops I only just noticed that you are away until the 21st. Hope you are enjoying your off wiki time. Any ideas you can give when you get back will be appreciated. Have fun. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well events intervened and things happened at both ANI and SPI. Thus you can ignore this thread. Thanks for your time anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 23:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite I am still awaiting to see the 10ticks page edited and back up and running, it has been a few months now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Samantha Brick. 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. Egg Centric 15:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Replied there. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, I've never attempted recreation of a deleted article before, but when I went to create Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C., I was surprised to see it had already been deleted two years ago. I'd like to give it another try with a fresh pair of eyes. I'm not quite sure what the procedure for that is, though. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think taking it to deletion review would be any use, and I'm concerned that even if you source the article impeccably the general view on the AfD was that the game itself wasn't notable enough (after all, even games that set records have been deleted in the past). A good idea might be to post at WT:FOOTY to see what the general consensus of the experts there is. If you want a copy of the old article userfied for you, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: It appears that an IP-based user has restored the page (again), my guess is without going through the proper channels. I checked around and it's no one associated with the band. However, since the restoration of the page, reviews for the album have come out in the Christian music community (which is admittedly limited, but they are 3rd party reviews). As such, I have edited both the live page and my sandbox page to include the references. I've also contacted an editor of a print magazine who has told me that his magazine will definitely be reviewing the album (which is what I was waiting for before editing the page in my sandbox for resubmission), now that it's been published in physical format (another point I was awaiting).

My question is: how does this need to be approached? The improved page is live, but they skipped the formalities, and re-deleting the page is likely to bring on more attempts at re-creation. Would it be acceptable to ask you to re-review your previous decision based on the few changes that have been made, or do we need to have the page deleted and have the exact same page resubmitted through the restoration process? 5minutes (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I created a deletion review explaining pretty much what I said above. If that's not correct, please let me know. 5minutes (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scottish football clubs and content related to The Troubles

Enjoy. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm Thanks :) Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Look enough is enough. I don't care about your consensus. I don't give a damn about you and anybody others consensus. I just want the article to be there. C'mon man how many times I have to beg you to not delete the article. Leave your wiki user consensus aside and try to take a survey of some real Coban fans. Over 80 percent will want to have an article on Khitai. They won't care if it will have a third part source not. And also I haven't edited the article after I remade it. MegaCyanide666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaCyanide666 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you want it restoring, you'll need to contest the AfD at deletion review. Much as you may not like it, consensus and policies is how Wikipedia functions. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

MegaCyanide666 just got back from a 48 hours block for personal attacks, and recreating an article deleted a few days ago, hiding behind an IP to edit war, and stating "I don't give a damn about you and anybody others consensus" is his way of making a fresh start ? I have already tried to bring our civility policies to his attention, and so did other users, but to no avail. Seeing how things have escalated just a few hours after his unblocking, and from what he just said here, I don't see how he could contribute in any constructive way here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite! I saw that you undid my relist. According to WP: RELIST, the purpose of relisting a deletion discussion is to enable a consensus to be generated for it. In which scenarios should I relist the debate and in which scenarios should I wait for an admin to close it as "No consensus"? Thanks, Electric Catfish 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC).

• Hi, I was about to drop you a note. Have a look at WP:RELIST again - "If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable ... therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.". There are certainly times when a third relist is valid (contentious BLPs, articles that have been rewritten since the AfD started, current events where notability may have changed etc.), but in general after three weeks discussions have run their course. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So for example, since I know you're interested in AfD closures, what would you do with this? - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah Francis. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually not interested in AfD closures (I do have 8, by the way). Anyways, I've voted in about 140 of them and my votes match the consensus about 85% of the time, so I wanted to try out relisting. Anyways, let me look at the other AfD. Electric Catfish 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just been closed as delete. Had I had the chance to vote in it, I'd vote to delete it, as she fails WP: PORNSTAR. First of all, the magazines are not mainstream media (which fails criterion #1), plus breast enlargement (please excuse me if this sounds offensive to you) is not a claim of notability. As for the closure, I personally wouldn't close an AfD with one oppose vote and one keep vote. If you see my closures (sorry, I don't have links), you'll see that they are all either housekeeping (nominator withdrew, already deleted, etc.), or an obvious keep. Thank you for all of your help, Electric Catfish 00:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC).

Yes, and you'd have been right. I would have closed it as delete as well; the Keep vote is somewhat tongue-in-cheek and it's fairly clear that she fails WP:NMODEL at the moment (which is probably a better fit than WP:PORNSTAR because she's only a topless model). Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Electric Catfish 00:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I maybe a little late, but thanks for protecting Flux Pavilion today. That attack was the worst I've ever seen. -- Luke (Talk) 00:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested to renew authorization for my bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2. You recently participated in the discussion about it at ANI so I wanted to invite your opinion. Thank you! Dcoetzee 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a followup questions regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Strike2216_reported_by_User:Bagumba_.28Result:_No_vio.29. Being a newly approved admin only yesterday, understand that my questions is as much to understand the thought process—should I become involved in handling requests myself—as it is about my specific report. you describe the edit war as "slow moving", but could it not be seen as gaming the system in that there was a pause of a few days after receiving a warning on their talk page. Also, there might have been confusion in that the form asked for a diff of the talk page discussion. In fact, three editors (counting myself) formed a consensus after the discussion was started at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_2,000_hits#Active_player, even if the editor in question chose not to participate. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Black Kite, I tried very hard to dissuade User:New Media from trying to file an Arbcom case a few weeks ago at the Teahouse; I thought I had succeeded, but apparently not. He is very insistent on having this go before Arbcom, even after NYB's general statement that Arbcom doesn't do content disputes. So, in the spirit of WP:ROPE, may I suggest you just let him do his thing and have it be quickly declined by arbs? Up to you, of course, but he is apparently impervious to hints. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let's see if he puts it back. I'm more concerned about everyone else's time that he's wasting by "notifying" them, rather than his own. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at his sandbox, I think it's pretty likely. The whole situation makes me facepalm, really, but I think that letting him go ahead and be declined is the path of least drama. Oh Christ, just noticed that his sandbox is about starting an arbcom case about you removing his other arbcom case. So much for path of least drama. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but should situations like this occur next, please just leave it to the Arbitrators to decline, rather than revert (and remove the request) yourself. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, normally I would have, but if you follow the history of this editor you'll see that you would have just ended up with him submitting the request again and again regardless; to save numerous people's time being wasted it needed to be stopped before it started. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• But in that case, the Arbitrators would be correct to restrict him from doing so. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Judging by his editing history, that would not have stopped him either. Still, he's indeffed now. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you handled my recent AN3 report about edit-warring on you didn't build that, I thought I'd mention that I've filed another AN3 report about another editor edit-warring on the same article (duplicated here and here). I'm mentioning it to you because this article has seen a ton of edit-warring (it's a hot-button political attack from the upcoming U.S. Presidential election), and part of me is hoping that an admin or three can be convinced to "ride shotgun" for awhile to help curtail the problem and head off daily reports to AN3. Anyhow, it's totally up to you - if you'd rather just leave the AN3 report for the next admin to handle, I'm totally fine with that. I just thought I'd mention it since you handled the previous case on the same article a day or two ago. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for providing your perspective at ANI regarding a thread I started there. Your balanced advice was useful and informative. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:EdJohnston#Block evasion. I blocked the IP 48 hours as an apparent sock of Mollskman. This is with reference to Wikipedia:AN3#User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: 31h). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Black Kite. I am still awaiting the 10ticks page to be looked at. I can see that some work has been done to it, but it is yet to be returned to it's rightful home. I would be grateful if you could look at it in the next week. Thanks

• As I said before, I am unable to find enough on the Internet to conclusively prove the article's notability. If you have any information on offline sources (i.e. reviews or articles in newspapers or periodicals) this would help enormously. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "This appears to be a content dispute. What administrator action are you requesting?" [16]. I don't believe BLPN is a venue for requesting administrator action, but rather a noticeboard for BLP disputes per WP:SEEKHELP. So, how should I respond to your question if you feel it should remain? --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Shit, sorry, had two windows open and thought I was still on ANI. Will remove :) Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Whew! You had me concerned that there might be some change on how noticeboards should be treated. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you closed the thread, and hid it, do you honestly believe that removing three ANI posts by other editors, [17], [18], [19] and making three personal attacks, [20], [21], [22], is perfectly acceptable behavior?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, and I said so in the thread. StillStanding said he would cease doing it. Let's hope everyone else drops it as well. See my reply to Arzel above, as well. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well he didn't even get a warning for removal of content at ANI or for making personal attacks, so I don't really know what else to conclude here, but it looks like I'm not the only one who is having issues with how this is being handled and portrayed.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I told him to stop it - that was a warning and it worked. If a neutral admin wants to pursue it then I'm certainly not going to stop them, but since pratically everyone in that ANI thread is on the "other" side from SS in these various political disputes, I'm equally certainly not going to block him purely based on their viewpoints (and I suspect most admins would look at it that way as well). I would seriously suggest dropping the issue here; if SS continues being disruptive he will be sanctioned at some point. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You know right after you let Still off the hook he went right after Collect. Believe what you want, but he is a very disriptive editor who's problems are all of his own making. Arzel (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not what I believe, it's what I see happening. I see a big mess of editors on both sides of a political divide sniping at each other, abusing each other and trying to get each other blocked. It's not what Wikipedia's about at all. If Still was being purely disruptive I'd have blocked him myself, but he did have a point originally and went about trying to fix it in the wrong way. There are lots of editors in this editing area who really need to have a word with themselves, because as I said before I can see an ArbCom case on the horizon. The 2008 election was never as bad as this (well apart from the Sarah Palin nonsense). Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• And that edit you linked to was Still replying to something Collect said about him, so I don't see the problem there either. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was a response, it was the timing to which I was referring. Still was in a dispute with Collect and during the dispute made what is from all appearances an unneeded escalation to an already escalated situation. If Still had not been so obtuse regarding his problem and bellicose in his response to other editors it probably would never have been a big deal. Additionally, if Still's initial interactions with so many editors had not been such a battleground from the beginning it probably would not have reached this point to begin with. Arzel (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but as I said above this whole editing area is one big battleground anyway. My personal view is that we should lock down all of the "big ticket" political articles for three months before an election and change them by editrequest, but that's never achieved consensus previously. It would save everyone a great deal of time and effort, though. Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that would be a great idea. Arzel (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Auto article probation for major candidates would be a great help. it worked well for Sarah Palin; not sure how well it's worked on Barack Obama (I rode herd on the first but not the second.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)