Black Kite

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:47 pm

On look, it happened again.

Black Kite spews his filth on Wikipediocracy......
The guy called me a troll, so I told him to fuck off. He called me a troll again, so I reminded him that I'd already told him to fuck off. He then did it a third time, so obviously has some sort of short-term memory issue, which isn't my problem.
......before offering up a LUDICROUS attempt to justify what he did that triggered all that further toxicity....
You do understand that believing that a support based on opposes is wrong is your opinion, not a basic fact?

If I vote for a politician in a 2-horse race not because I particularly support them, but I do think their opponent is worse, should my vote be discounted?
No sooner had he been called out for talking absolute shit......
Of course not, but most places I've voted you don't get to stand in the voting booth with a megaphone... so I'm not sure the analogy holds. Also, who is running against Floq? JU? And who is funding the campaigns? ^^
I am saying that in a highly divisive RfA related to an intensely heated issue, acting like a kid by referring your apparent "loyalty support" for your old friend by referencing 3 strong opposes is assuming that people can read your mind, you are such a big swinging dick that everyone knows you or you expect people to look up your history. You're not that significant.
.....than he magically ignores that and just moved on to a different point in the exact same thread, LIKE HE DIDN'T EVEN HEAR THEM.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 12#p243912

What's that all about Jake?

Unban me, and I'll make sure he doesn't get away with so blatantly being a WIKIPEDIAN COWARD on a so-called Wikipedia criticism site.

If Black Kite has no answer to the question, why are you claiming that this thing you did that looks like trolling was not actually trolling, then let him state of clearly, he has no answer. Or rather, state affirmatively that he declines to answer the question. Make him say it. Make him eat his own shit.

Or, y'know, you can carry on being their second front.

And you two, the people who tried, why are you putting up with this shit? Did Jake threaten you over PM, tell you to leave the members he respects alone? Because he does that, the Quisling fuck.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:11 pm

Black Kite doing his corrupt thing yet again.

According to him, Sandstein is WP:INVOLVED wrt Eric Corbett because Eric keeps hurling abuse at him because he blocked him. This is, according to this retard, a "conflict" which makes him involved.

Sandstein pointing out the fucking obvious, namely that if this garbage were seriously how that policy is meant to be interpreted, any abusive editor could quite easily ensure no Admin can block them by insulting every Admin that might do so, is dismissed out of hand, as "novel".

Of course, Black Kite is INVOLVED wrt Eric, per the policy, because it would be trivially easy to demonstrate he has "strong feelings" about how he should be sanctioned. So strong, he was admonished by ArbCom for conduct unbecoming in one such attempt to tilt the balance of power. Hasn't stopped him though, has it. Still trying his level best to lie, cheat and generally interfere with any attempt to sanction Eric

It quickly spiralled away from Black Kite's intended purpose, so with some desperation he tried to re-rail it in the process revealing what this is really all about......
This actually isn't about Eric. If there's consensus to block him (for three months) after 24 hours, someone will do it. If there isn't, they won't. However, what won't be happening is Sandstein, someone who has previous issues with Eric, swooping in and blocking for three months without even reading the bloody discussion and when there's quite a few people opining that it's not blockable. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
What previous issues? Blocking Eric. A big no no.

No consensus ever emerges to block Eric, because corrupt bastards like Black Kite are always allowed to participate, directly or in this case, indirectly, and he does so in a similar fashion to here - distorting policy, if not just lying his ass off, in whatever way is required to achieve the outcome desired - not blocking Eric Corbett.

--------

Wikipedia sucks in part because this piece of shit doesn't get criticized on Wikipediocracy, where he is a regular poster, for being engaged in obvious partisan bullshit like this. He gets his dick sucked.

Why is that, Jake? Come on, explain to all your fans why you're so happy to protect the very worst scum Wikipedia has to offer?

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by Abd » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:36 pm

CrowsNest wrote:Black Kite doing his corrupt thing yet again.

According to him, Sandstein is WP:INVOLVED wrt Eric Corbett because Eric keeps hurling abuse at him because he blocked him. This is, according to this retard, a "conflict" which makes him involved.

Sandstein pointing out the fucking obvious, namely that if this garbage were seriously how that policy is meant to be interpreted, any abusive editor could quite easily ensure no Admin can block them by insulting every Admin that might do so, is dismissed out of hand, as "novel".

It seemed they haven't figured out the "involved" bit, still. If an admin blocks a user, it has long been understood that the blocked user may be less than polite. My proposal was that if a user claims an admin is involved, the admin should, in fact recuse, but "recuse" does not mean unblock. It means, "someone else will handle this," and an admin recusing in this way would become like any other user, they could request admin attention etc.

And then I proposed that an admin may declare an emergency, i.e., clear damage to the project or the community if the admin does not act. And emergency would trump recusal policy. A frivolous declaration of emergency would be grounds for sanctions, but key to this: it is unblock that is important, not block.

A user who was insulting many admins would be blocked quickly; this is why there are hundreds of admins. This idea of a user insulting all the admins so as to become block-proof was made up to justify actual recusal failure.

The key to sane block policy is to show that it is not personal, that it is really up to the community, and if you waste your talk page space railing against the blocking admin, the possibility of another admin showing up to unblock gets more and more remote. But the admin cabal does not really care about what the full community thinks. La communauté c'est moi.

And then if there are only a few admins on-hand, one blocks noting that recusal was ignored, and immediately submits the issue to the administrators.

I have not looked at this particular cesspool. On the face of this Black Kite would be correct, but with regard to what action? If there is a history of Corbett insulting Sandstein, then if recusal failure is charged, Sandstein should back off, and again, "back off" does not mean "unblock." It means turning over any necessary information to the community. It means also avoiding conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

Sandstein would be one of the admins, though, if I recall correctly, who would argue against the kind of recusal policy that I've suggested, using that imaginary preposterous case.

Underneath this is the existence of factions often with deep differences in how the project should properly operate, that are never resolved, because Wikipedia never set up true dispute resolution process.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:19 pm

It's not preposterous. Eric Corbett makes a point of trying to provoke Administrators who block him. He doesn't need to do it to all of them, because he already knows there are at most only about ten Administrators brave enough to even consider blocking him. The rest, either don't want the drama, don't want to be harassed for enforcing policy on the Toxic One, or they are his friends and allies.

He is trying to make it personal. His whole shtick is this victim narrative he has going on, where no block he has ever been given has been about policy. It's been a vendetta, orchestrated by the cabal. He used to claim Jimmy was at the heart of it all, but a few years of Jimmy making it pretty clear he could give less of a fuck what the drunken fool does, he has had to switch to other targets, hence why Sandstein is now cast as the Evil One.

He'll happily even do it to former friends and allies. It doesn't trouble Eric one bit to have to argue a friend has been seduced by the Dark Forces arrayed against him. He would rather do that, than ever admit that his behaviour is often so reprehensible, once in a blue moon even a friend will stop reflexively defending him.

It is unlikely Black Kite will ever stop carrying water for Eric. He's too far gone, done way to much bad shit for Eric, to ever have to face the crushing reality that he's been a traitor to everything Wikipedia is supposed to be. Still, it is hardly news that Black Kite has his own agendas, and if he has to screw the community over to achieve them, he will.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:15 am

I swear to God, this guy could lie for England.
I never comment on any EC-related cases any more, and haven't for while, because I've previously been accused of being "pro-Eric". I don't see why the same shouldn't apply in reverse. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
For a fucking start, that comment, specifically the last line, was literally a comment on an ongoing EC case, specifically a pathetic argument that Sandstein should recuse.

He was so determined to still be commenting on EC cases, he took that shit to AN/I.....
User:Sandstein has just blocked User:Eric Corbett for 3 months.........This is simply wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
.....and he had done so before he said the above, so he knew it was a lie, and yet he said it anyway.

He of course also said that when he knew he had already also made plenty of comments on that very same case, and in the section reserved for uninvolved Administrators no less, such as.......
@Vanamonde93: You do realise the "guttersnipe" comment (a Shakespearean insult) was in reply to EEng sarcastically saying "So tell us, Shakespeare ..."? Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
....which is the usual attempt to get Eric off the hook by blaming other people for his crimes.

For someone who supposedly doesn't comment on EC cases anymore, he was of course all over the dispute that led to that AE report, a full week before he told the lie about how he no longer comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =909522190

This is what Black Kite does. He lies to other people on Wikipedia to help his friends, then goes and has cigars and cookies at Wikipediocracy and laughs about how he gets away with it. Rubs it right in their faces by letting them think his 'oh, I don't comment on EC cases anymore' comment on Wikipedia wasn't a dirty stinking lie, safe in the knowledge Uncle Jake has his back.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:08 am

Given his antics in the Floquenbeam RfA, it would be interested to know what Black Kite would say if someone were to vote "support per Eric Corbett" in response to this wholly childish vote.....
Oppose I've seen no evidence that Hawkeye7 understands that comments such as as [19] are inappropriate for an administrator. If I'm to be held to account for ancient crimes, then so should he. If some want to apply a statute of limitations it should apply to all, not just to their favourites. Eric Corbett 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Also rather hilarious to see the ferret fucker talking about the virtues of not dwelling on the past. Black Kite of course having opposed Hawkeye simply for not blocking enough people back in the day.

Rather odd logic that. Who was the better Administrator back in the day, the dude who did little, but what he did do included blocking Eric, one of the rare times one actually stuck, or the guy who does a lot, including earning a formal Admonishment for the way he saught to prevent his colleagues from blocking Eric?

I wonder also, given his view on Hawkeye, if Black Kite has a comment on the very little Administrative work done by Ealgyth, who seems to have only stood for RfA so she could defend Eric's indefensible conduct from the virtuous position of being an Administrator......

Is there a single person on Wikipediocracy brave enough to put these questions to Black Kite? To settle once and for all, this great debate - is he a neutral Administrator, or is he Eric Corbett's personal water carrier?

I would, but, well, it does rather tend to get you banned from that place. Can't be upsetting such fine upstanding members of the Administration. Not with facts and shit.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:56 pm

Black Kite yet again not commenting on Eric Corbett, these posts made in his home from home, Wikipediocracy, the natural place for scum like him.....
I've just asked if that's the only sock - because if it is, that one's actually editing perfectly OK and ArbCom have purely indeffed Eric for pissing them about by claiming he's retired during an ArbCom case about him. So... I presume there are others. Bet we don't get diffs though
Oh of course, it's just that the pronouncement said "abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out". I was intrigued to see what Eric was disrupting (apart from ArbCom, which is simply amusing).
What does he actually have to do, to be removed as an Administrator? This is a clear and obvious statement that he doesn't believe in the sock-puppetry policy, and not only won't enforce it, is actually prepared to undermine it. Just for the lulz.

He was first on scene at AC/N, making similar comments......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ic_Corbett

Not that the coward would admit it, but I'd say it's also basically an admission he knew Eric was already socking, and was probably helping him to do so. He has done it before with another similarly notoriously disruptive user who just one day decided, fuck it, I'll just sock. In future, as with that past case, you can expect Black Kite to flatly deny Eric even has socked, right to people's faces. That is how much contempt he holds for anyone he doesn't consider worthy of his corrupt assistance.

Basically, if you want a bent cop on Wikipedia, you call this guy. I mean, you can call Drmies too, but I'm betting Black Kite charges less, probably just a pint, and his loyalty to the end is assured. Drmies has a habit of cutting you loose once you become a liability to his own reputation.

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Black Kite

Post by JuiceBeetle » Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:40 pm

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&p=252310#p252310
Black Kite wrote:
ConsciousBook wrote:It is quite extraordinary that Icewhiz has been banned while Volunteer Marek still continues to edit Wikipedia even though he said:

"...1) Fuck. You. ...a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now."


If I believed someone had falsely accused me of Holocaust denial I strongly suspect my reply would have contained most of those words. "Fuck you" would certainly have been the opening couplet.


Thank you for filling out the "Psychological Screening for Administrators" test. We will inform you of the results in the coming days. Please don't forget to take your anti-anxiety medication in the meantime.

Post Reply