User talk:Black Kite: Difference between revisions

Black Kite Hi, I’m an administrator here, and have been since 2007. I’ll try to answer any questions here as soon as I can, though I do have periods where I’m not available. For admins: if you think I’ve done something really stupid and I don’t respond to a question about it, please feel free to reverse it … we can work it out later on.

For Talk Page Archives, click here.

If you email me via Wikipedia, please leave me a note here (unless there’s a good reason you do not want that fact to be public). I do check my Wikipedia email fairly regularly, but not that regularly.

I added a blurb to your ITN nomination. If you don’t mind, could you please specify whether you would support such a blurb? Your original nomination implies that you do, but it isn’t clear. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Black Kite! I want to thank you for looking into the my 3RR report. That said, I’m somewhat confused. That user did violate the three-revert rule by making five reverts within less than 24 hours, made two reverts while the case was still pending, and they even reverted my own edit on the noticeboard, and they’re getting away with it all with no sanctions?! I’ve been on Wikipedia for twenty years, and it is never permissible to revert or edit another users’ posts on discussion pages except under rare circumstances.

And what if that user keeps being disruptive? What if they keep edit warring with other users? What should I do? Israell (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally I would agree, but you also reverted four times in that period (the three restorations of songwriter, plus the edit at 02:11UTC). In such circumstances we usually block both editors or protect the page, but given that there is a discussion actually happening at the talk page I decided to see how it goes. Please let me know if the issue continues, or take it to WP:ANI and tell them I sent you. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (talk page stalker) I agree with Black Kite here. Both parties violated the 3RR and both are lucky to escape sanctions. Instead of exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and trying to get 750h+ blocked, how about concentrating on making your case in the talk page discussion? Right now it looks like there isn’t consensus to include the lines you want to include, and the WP:ONUS policy says that it’s your job to make the case as to why they should be included, more so than those who wish to remove the lines. You may need to consider dropping the stick at some point, or else find irrefutable sourcing for your case. WP:DR is also possible if you reach an impasse in discussions… Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru Just a few clarifications… I found such sources. I composed a new section (in “Artistry”) to the article that pertains to Rihanna’s songwriting craft, and I included sources (incl. American Songwriter and CTV). And that user removed it even though they argued that the body of the article should mention it. Besides, the body of the article did mention her songwriting in a different section, but they removed that part last July. As for making my case, I’ve already lengthily made it on the talk page of that article with sound arguments and sources. I have no more arguments to add, and so far, more users are weighing in favour of that occupation being mentioned in the infobox. Israell (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Israell: I’m not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the issue in question, I really have no opinion on that point. But the key point is to form a WP:CONSENSUS on the matter, bearing in mind that the WP:ONUS is on you to provide the sourcing and satisfy others that it’s WP:DUEWEIGHT to include the reference to songwriting in the article. It sounds like the concern of those opposing is that a couple of throwaway mentions of her being a songwriter aren’t necessarily valid when there is a lack of sourcing discussing that aspect of her career in detail. But if you have the sourcing and if consensus is swinging in your favour then all well and good I guess. Just refrain from editing the article further and continually reverting it back to what you consider the “right” version until it’s clear where the consensus lies or, if there is a genuine impasse, then seek help through the dispute resolution process. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru I hear you, but it is also important to take into consideration all the arguments of those in favour of it. I do not agree that the sourcing is insufficient, and I’ve already explained why on the talk page. Wikipedia is about verifiability, and Rihanna is a professional songwriter with 152 songwriting credits who’s written very successful (and even awarded) songs for herself and other artists as well. Those are facts. So far, at least four editors (me included) on the talk page are in favour of that inclusion.

  I have stopped editing and reverting anything on the article ever since I submitted my report. On the other hand, that user did not stop and reverted the word “songwriter” that was added back by a different user. I’ll let others discuss this as I have no more arguments or sources. If there is clear consensus, I and other editors will edit accordingly.

  And here’s a thought… Maybe there should be a general consensus for all pop singer articles on whether or not the threshold for the word “songwriter” should be equal to that of the word “singer.” The way I see things, if a recording artist consistently sings, they are a singer; if a recording artist consistently writes songs, they are a songwriter—regardless of how many collaborators write with them. (Collaborative songwriting doesn’t necessarily diminish one’s craft—it may actually reinforce it.)

  Years ago, the exact same debate went on on the Beyoncé article. An editor removed “songwriter” from both the lede and infobox, and it took a very lengthy debate and RfC to restore it.

  Where can I suggest such a general consensus on Wikipedia for all pop singers who write songs? Israell (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music might be the best place to start. It looks like there are people who watch that page. If that’s not the right venue they might direct you to somewhere that is…  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru One more question for you: In regard to WP:ONUS… If many users are disputing a certain element, I totally understand why consensus is needed. But if only one or a few users take issue with an element of an article that was there for many years, from what you’re telling me, the burden of proof is on those who want to maintain that element.

  Going by that logic, anybody can peruse an article, take issue with one element, and remove it without any prior discussion, obliging those who disagree with the removal to build a case. I’ve been on Wikipedia for twenty years, and it is not so black or white. Besides, nobody owns an article.

  The debate is going on on that talk page, and there is a very strong pushback from that particular user against any editor who has a different perspective. I refuse to engage any further with that particular user. That said, I posted my suggestion on WikiProject Music. Thanks for the tip! Israell (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I’m only arguing for the occupation in question to be mentioned in the infobox and the body of the article—not the lede! The arguments, information and sources provided are therefore largely sufficient. It is par for the course on Wiki for the infobox to include secondary main professions. Israell (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]