User talk:Kingsindian

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Re George Bell

Sorry Kingsindian. I had not scrolled down enough to see the "missing" text down at the bottom. Better where it is now though I think.Charles (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: No worries. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice

Hi, Kingsindian (cc: Clockback). I've closed the AN block appeal discussion, as it's clear there's not going to be any consensus for the unblock you seek. I closed the discussion now to spare the project of more drama than it has already received. However, let me be clear: had that discussion remained open for a sufficient period of time, and the discussion continued to trend in the way it was going, it would have been closed as a community-endorsed block, which, according to policy, is the same thing as a community ban. Administrators do not have the authority to overturn a community ban; a later community discussion authorizing an unblock would be required, and the bare minimum "time served" for that to happen would most likely be six months, per standard practice. I came very close to closing the discussion in that manner, but ultimately felt that the discussion had not been open long enough for there to have been the required "due consideration" sufficient for a community ban. There is nothing inherently harsh about an indefinite block. It can be as short as a few minutes. It's largely up to the blocked user. All that is required is a GAB-compliant unblock request. Blocked users have the right to re-appeal to a new admin, as many times as they want, they have the right to debate, dispute and discuss the block with administrators ad infinitum, they can negotiate unblock conditions, and hammer out what exactly needs to be said or done in order to secure an unblock. When you appeal to the community and the community endorses the block, all of that goes out the window and the user basically has no recourse but the six month standard offer, though it's still left up to another community discussion at that point. So, in your good faith effort to cast this indefinite block as "too harsh", you almost got the user indefinitely banned, which is substantially more draconian. I performed the close at this time on the assumption that nobody will have a problem with allowing the user to retain the regular options for an unblock. There is no guarantee that somebody won't insist on reopening the discussion, thus giving the block "due consideration", in order to secure a community-block, and if that happens, there's really nothing I can do. But, this is just a heads-up about the situation. I think the best thing you can do is bow out and let this user quietly negotiate an unblock. Like I said, there is no guarantee that things won't escalate further, but letting the user handle it with admins is going to be their best bet. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I have communicated with Clockback, and they would like to re-open the block review and let it run its course, even if it means that they might end up in an even bigger hole. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've sent Clockback a message giving them one more chance to reconsider, but if they confirm that they fully understand the gravity of the consequences and still wish to reopen the discussion, I will do so. Swarm ♠ 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Clockback has now replied on the talkpage, asking for re-opening. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathy is still with Clockback, as I consider he has been harshly and unfairly treated. But it's hard to help someone who shoots himself in the foot at every opportunity. I'd like to thank you for what you've done on his behalf. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your Herculean effort to raise the standard of debate on administrative noticeboards and throughout the project. Zero^talk 07:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Thanks for the kind words. Btw, I would characterize it as "Sisyphean" rather than "Herculean". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchens

I see that you have resigned from the discussion. Kind of a crowded forum. If you would like to talk via google hangouts or skype, i would be willing. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I would probably prefer email. In any case, I need a break from this matter for now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought talking would be more swift. (I would do that voice only if the anonymity is your concern).

I sympathize with your frustration; whatever you like, or nothing. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I usually need time to think through what I'm saying, and I do lots of edits and rewriting. That's why I prefer asynchronous communication like email. There's no hurry about the matter, since the outcome isn't really in the balance now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Email is fine. :) And only if you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I’m not intruding here, but might be of interest to yourself and Jytdog (who I assume has watch listed here) the article Peter Hitchens wrote on his blog: Goodbye Wikipedia and thanks for all the laughs.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: Thanks. I already knew about it though: Hitchens emailed a link to me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I all but completely left Wikipedia several months ago after an unpleasant experience on de.wikipedia.org, hence I have only just seen that you mentioned me during the Clocback COI discussion. It's far too late now, but still for what it's worth: your assessment of the situation fits in very nicely with my perceptions from the time when I was active on the Bell article. Clockback was upfront about his RL identity and his agenda was well known. At one point the other user and I were in agreement that the section needed to be pruned back, but I found it difficult to hold a reasoned discussion with them about how to do it. I'm unfamiliar with dispute resolution on en.wikipedia.org, but it looks as if you approached the COI discussion very conscientiously and were given a hard time for your pains: I am very sorry about that. My position: Although I sincerely hope that Bell is innocent of the allegations, I believe strongly in writing the WP article according to the current state of the reliable sources. --GroupCohomologist (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Posting this for informational purposes only since you have recently contributed at Talk:Sarah Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wondered if you had seen the present WP:ARCA, initiated by Sir Joseph. The arb.com members wants evidence from WP:AE...I seem to recall that you gave some at an AE? ...but I cannot find it. Please refresh my memory...Huldra (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hi. I saw your comments there. I am sorry we seem to have different views on what standard of sourcing we should use on articles on living people, and that the consensus seems to be totally against you. Can I suggest making any complaints you may have about my actions at a more relevant forum like AN/I? Obviously I don't think there was anything wrong with what I did, but if you do, that would make more sense than (apparently) holding a long-term grudge. Thanks. --John (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I have no interest in complaining at ANI (the matter is not too important either way). And I don't know you, and don't plan to hold any long-term grudge against you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

"Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request." — That is a very good idea and I'll help as I can. But ArbCom have shown a frustrating lack of interest in clarifying their own rulings. Zero^talk 13:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghcool it was not his first revert so the rule doesn't apply. --Shrike (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I am a bit pressed for time now, but I'll probably open an ARCA request soon. My opinion is that it would be best to simply go back to 1RR, with no frills at all. It's simple and a bright line, which is what it should be. One cannot really handle all the game-playing that goes on in political areas with one rule. So the best thing is to have a simple (and effective) rule. More complicated cases can be handled with discretionary sanctions. What do you think? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the old 1RR rule is not a good idea: remember why it was changed: if A added something, B removed it, then A could immediately reinsert it, as that first addition was not a "revert". Basically anyone insisting on adding something to an article would win, in a one-to-one situation, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: On the other hand the new version is good for knee-jerk reverters. Someone adds good text, someone reverts it just because they don't like it, now it has to stay out for 24 hours after which the cycle can repeat. I'm sure it is impossible to write a workable rule that stops all types of bad behavior. The most crying need is to get rid of the ambiguous phrase "original author"; beyond that I'm not sure. Zero^talk 00:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Well, no: anyone insisting on adding something to an article would not win (ultimately). They may win exactly one round, which is only 24 hours. Ultimately, WP:ONUS is still policy, as are prohibitions against edit-warring. If they continue to add stuff over repeated reverts, they're violating policy.

The reason I think 1RR is the best rule is that it is simple and completely dependent on your own behaviour. You are given one revert every 24 hours, regardless of what your "opponent" does. One does not worry about whether the other guy is "reverting" or not. So, for example, if you only edit the page once a day, you cannot run afoul of 1RR. Furthermore, it works better with the way watchlists work on Wikipedia: one sees a change one doesn't like, one checks whether one hasn't reverted within the past 24 hours -- and then it is safe to revert. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: and Kingsindian: Remember how it was under the old 1RR rule, before I started all this. Then you could have this:

12.00 A add something new
12.01 B removes it
12.02 A readd exactly the same stuff...as that first addition was not technically a revert, this would be ok(!)
12.02 next day: the earliest B could remove it again, without breaking 1RR.
12.03 next day: A could readd it a third time.........etc, etc, etc

The above is why I said that you had to be 2 editors wanting to remove some stuff, in order to counteract 1 who wanted to add it.

I agree that if you could only add/remove the same stuff one time in 24 hours, then that would be the best solution; but that was not what the old 1RR was, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I understand what you're saying. But the second instance is not the same as the first. And the third instance is not the same as the second (and so on). WP:ONUS and prohibitions on edit-warring still exist; they are meant to handle exactly this issue. The 1RR rule (and the 3RR rule, from which it is derived) is not meant to handle all bad behaviour, only one kind of bad behaviour. Also, see Zero's comment about the flip side of the "tweaked 1RR" rule: it encourages obstructionist behaviour by revert-happy people. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]