User talk:Black Kite/Archive 75

Fae

[[1]], I am sorry but this is getting out of hand now, I stopped posting at the ANI when asked, I stepped back and they continue to push this. This is creating a very toxic environment over at that AFD (and derailed it once already). It would be unwise of me to open another ANI so soon after another was closed, yet this crap is still being said (and my explanations ignored). This is nothing but intimidation and an attempt to undermine editors credibility, and should not be tolerated.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The general ranting has been going on for days, perhaps longer. Certainly, since my return to more regular editing earlier this week. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And now here. Not quite so ranty as some recent stuff - eg: this - but they're not letting it drop, despite ample explanation. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that was not a good close. ∯WBG^converse 11:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And if I follow your (And others) advice I am now unable to defend myself from the latest bout of accusations without continuing the drama. Even though they have asked me to (yet again) explain myself, despite having done so.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: I think you've just proved my point by misgendering Fae yet again (yes, I know you just edited it out, 6 hours later), even after that ANI thread ...
• @Sitush and Winged Blades of Godric: I think it was a good close, because it had devolved (as GoldenRing and Wohltemperierte Fuchs pointed out) into a slanging match. If anyone (including Slatersteven) wants to file a proper ANI report about Fae's editing, in a neutral tone and containing plenty of diffs showing a persistent issue (rather than them being sprayed around a post like buckshot) then I (and I'm sure any other admin) will consider it. But that thread was simply generating more heat than light. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What point? I made a mistake because I forgot they (i nearly wrote she again, its a common way to describe someone, which is the point they have asked to be referred to in a way that does not come naturally, I had not noticed I had called them she (and frankly it looks wrong as well, it just does not flow right)) want to be called they. But it is not the same as saying someone is stalking them (based upon no evidence, an accusation they continue to make). But fair enough, if it continues I will take it to ANI again.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the thread, IIRC. I don't think I was even editing between it being opened and closed. I think they're demonstrating behaviour that is hypersensitive, unreasonable, hypocritical, tendentious and lord knows what else. But, me being not at all hypersensitive etc, I find it easier often just to ignore them like I do most other people who brand me as X, Y or Z without rhyme nor reason. I do have limits, though, and sooner or later and I will snap.

However, now that a link to the Twitter feed of an article subject has been deleted because it was "creepy", I'm wondering whether to propose deletion of {{Twitter}} because, surely, if a link to one person's feed is "creepy" then it could equally be so for everyone else's :) WP:POINT or what? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at that, linking directly to a subject's Twitter feed is not exactly optimal (IMO). We've been using the template {{Not a ballot}} for many years, and SPA voting that's obviously come from external sources is usually pretty obvious. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, people have been linking directly to a particular Twitter thread for days in relation to the Clarice Phelps palaver, in an attempt to show that she is notable. This is where the hypocrisy starts, I guess. But no worries - neither I nor SS added that template. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware it existed, and have seen it done in other threads anyway (and not just in relation to this current issue, or even females) (in fact as I said I found it by following links in other forum threads here on Wikipedia). I was not aware it was not good practice. Nor do I understand why they took it so personally, or why they made accusation about stalking, they could have just said what you said. Rather then going off on a rant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also they turned up out of the blue, they had not even edited that AFD, or indeed the article that was being AFD'd. It was totally unprovoked and unexpected. It bore no relation to what really had happened and included utterly non sensicle accusations. It just made no sense (well to be precise the fact it is continuing only makes one kind of sense).Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Slatersteven was accused of creepiness and Fae also implied sexism. Fae keeps protesting that they did not explicitly use that exact word, but it stretches the bounds of credulity to say that this is not a charge of sexism. All Slatersteven did to warrant those charges was perform a Google search on the subject of the AfD, which is hardly problematic. I cannot understand why that ANI thread was closed so hastily and without a single admin making it abundantly clear that the fault lay with Fae and not with Slatersteven. Yes, there may have been some slanging and I myself made a mistake by using a word I should not have used (which I struck before the thread was closed). But the slanging was no so severe as to warrant shutting down the thread without first making sure that Fae understood why their behavior is not okay. Yet you seem to be more concerned about the fact that Slatersteven's ANI filing was not proper and neutral. I really want to understand how this is fair, but I do not. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

As I have said I did not even do a google search, I followed a link to a twitter feed (posted at RSN) and then followed another post from that twitter feed (just one). There really was not research or digging of any kind involved.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Consoring"

Hmm, as long as you're correcting the record, maybe you can hop on over to the National Archives? As a true Wikipedian, you can't sit by idly while there's something wrong on the internet... Drmies (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ha, perhaps it is a word after all. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

arb case talk

Please stick to comments in your own section at arb talk pages. To respond to the substance of your comment (and this is only my personal opinion, not a position of the clerks or the committee) we should allow editors a fair bit of latitude to present the defence they want to present. I removed what I removed (with the advice of arbs) because it seemed likely to take the case off at an unhelpful tangent, but I wanted to keep the pruning fairly minimal. GoldenRing (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: I actually didn't realise the talkpage was sectioned. Is this a new thing? I haven't noticed it before. However - Rama's evidence is still 75% about the content dispute despite the fact that there's a massive note at the top of the page to say "don't present evidence about the content dispute" - so why is it still there? Oh yeah, and "In this case, English Wikipedia seems not just to reflect outside racism and misogyny, but to actively enforce one of its own." - is this acceptable, given that Rama named editors in their (now deleted) evidence? Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Revdel needed

Would you please mind revdeleting this too? [[2]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

marchordie

Not sure if I should respond to what was said at ANI, but it is exactly an example of what I said. They have decided an RS policy all of their own and they will enforce it (this I must say is AGF).Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• As I said, it would be a very poor idea if they continued to try and enforce it. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This really is a bit sad. Apart form this one issue (over tabloids) they do not seem to be a problem editor (well as far as I can tell) it it was such a bizarre issue to throw yourself onto a sword over. I really am flabbergasted by this, I will admit that (as I said at the ANI) I did expect it to end up here, but not this quickly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. However, the combination of refusal to accept consensus and a number of personal attacks leads us to where we are. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I keep on writing a message to their talk pager asking them think carefully about what they do next (I think I know, but must AGF). But then not posting it as I just know it will arouse their anger. I have just this kind of thing too many times to not think they are going to do something rash.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not quite what I wanted to say, but not far short.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at MoD's user talk? See this. An IP has just accused MoD of socking in their edit summary while restoring the Block Notice. My understanding is that according to WP:DRC and WP:REMOVED this restoration seems to be against procedure/guidelines... Thanks Shearonink (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know that is true. Seems to me policy says they are allowed to remove even active block notices. But I suspect this was a sock having a dig.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect statement on ANI

In this statement you made upon closing the matter, you wrote that I would support an indefinite block in a way that suggests that I jumped in and said "Indef at once!!!". This is incorrect; I called for a further investigation into all these matters but I rejected the idea of an infinite block(with one exception), and only contemplated a topic ban if the user would decline to correct a problem with their paid editing behaviour(and according to the evidence there was some editing behaviour that was not good(promotional)).Lurking shadow (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE

Since you commented at WP:AE, please see my request/comment here. Icewhiz's accusations are getting out of hand and have gone past just plain ol' WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks straight into odious smear territory. Someone needs to rein him in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Justin Edinburgh

On 8 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Justin Edinburgh, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing some articles

Hello Black Kite! First of all, thanks for clarifying to me why my image of Achaia Channel's headquarters had to be deleted, I won't do it again. Now, I have heavily edited two articles: Channel 9 (Greece) and Star Academy (Greek TV series). Do you want to take a look and put them a rating on their talk pages, or if there's already one put, update it, as a means of feedback for my work? Thanks! NickBlamp (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair play

I only hatted the one tidbit because I had a sinking feeling in my gut and didn't want another argument to erupt, particularly one completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but I understand and respect why you reverted me. --Dylan620 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a problem - I just wanted the whole conversation hatted, rather than leaving a bit hanging. Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ronin Shenanigans

You blocked me recently, though I honestly think you aren't aware of the full picture here.

I've had an ongoing problem with Slightlymad who I believe requested the block, maliciously.

There are several bones of contention with this article which he has failed to justify or engage in rationally. Wiki is not a forum for proprietary grandstanding.

A well sourced (Washington Post and Roger Ebert Film site) change I recently made was deleted by him without explanation. Before that I had deleted a badly sourced statement by him (after several attempts at civilised discourse) during which he resorted to profanity, though not directed at me, personally. I'd be grateful if you could give the last three or four items on the RONIN (1988 film) talk-page your professional eye and make a judgement here. There is also a misuse of the talk-page through redirecting responses, or blocking them.

It's great to be able to navigate Wiki as well as he can, but that's no reason to abuse the skill.

Thanks. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Power Rangers Samurai

Can I Change in the Casting Area please Black Kite and thanks. Thanks. RuthSmith95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you make it a bit clearer? Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Slate Star Codex

I'd like to propose recreation of the Draft:Slate Star Codex page, as I believe it has increased in notability since 2017 and now passes GNG. Calvinballing (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement

Thank you for letting me know that there is an enforcement action of some type against me. Can I ask what it is about? Based on recent events, I assume it was requested by snooganssnoogans, as he keeps reverting edits I make to the Ocasio-Cortez article, calling them unsubstantiated smears, even though they are factual and properly cited, and I am not violating the 1RR rule or any other rule I am aware of. If you look at the edit history of this article and others, he seems to simply revert any edits that include content he doesn't like. I also do not appreciate the statements he has made about myself and other editors, on personal or article talk pages, but I am not requesting any enforcement action - just pointing out that this editor seems to delight in being abrasive and obstructionist. Also - do I get to see the case against me, and do I get a chance to state my case? (I just don't know how these matters work.) Any assistance you could provide would be helpful. Thanks.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• JohnTopShelf, that notification on your talk page, User talk:JohnTopShelf, has text in blue; it says "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JohnTopShelf". You can click on that. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hi BK - I just wanted to check if you'd seen my email. If you don't have an answer or feel it would be inappropriate to respond, that's fine, I just wanted to check. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi - I'll check - my Wiki email doesn't alert me so I have to remember to look at it every so often. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Roscelese Hm - I don't appear to have one - can you send it again? Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Will do! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Got it. For some reason, some of my Wikipedia emails go into the spam folder - I've no idea why! Let me consider this - however I am away this weekend so will not be able to get back to you until Monday, Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Mind pinging me when you're replied in case I have the same issue? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes

Hello Black Kite. Can you please tell me why you undid my edit?

• Because you removed sourced material from the article in favour of your own (unsourced) interpretation. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Black Kite a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Mjs1991 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Email

Did that message ever get through? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Argh. Yes, it did, but it completely slipped my mind. I'll go back and read it again now and drop you a reply. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to bug you! I was genuinely wondering if I was having an email problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page

Do not protect user talk pages except in the most severe cases of vandalism, and never protect user talk pages indefinitely or at the edit=EC level. If there is a good reason for protecting this page, you should create an unprotected subpage for new users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, that is an arrogant, authoritive and incorrect statement. Get some experience before you start throwing your weight around at highly experienced users and admins, especially those who helped create the policies, or you won't be finding many friends who want to work with you on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

But the protection policy still recommends creating a subpage for non-EC users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Just so. The policy recommends; it was you that used the word never, which is not at all what it says—or even more importantly, intends. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Though it's not forbidden, it's very concerning for an admin, who should be open and accountable for their actions, to prevent the vast majority of users from posting to their talk page unless there's been a spree of vandalism to their page or similar. Particularly if the user makes admin actions which affect a non-ECP'd user (that is, almost any admin action). — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 20:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Perspective

It’s not just WP; the whole internet/country/world is similarly fucked. Oddly enough, the actual humans I know in real life haven’t become more obnoxious. Don’t let him get to you; the people who count can see thru the hypocrisy. The people who count know it isn’t trolling. Thanks for your comments. —Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, when you say "count", are you referring to the people who tally the votes or are you referring to a distinction between an elite (those who matter) and the unwashed hoi polloi who do not? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Don't spend too much time on these sorts of people. (For what it's worth, I don't think that there are more awful people than there used to be. I just think that since... well, let's say late 2016 or so, the existing awful people have felt empowered to be more publicly awful, and don't feel the same need to hide their awfulness). The Fourth Law of Stupidity applies, as laws always do I guess, when it comes to responding to some this stuff, and I think that's what Floq is getting at as well. Anyhow... you're a good admin. I hope to see you back, and refreshed, although believe me when I say I know how you're feeling and sympathize with your desire to take a break. MastCell ^Talk 02:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Travels

Apparently, one can visit the manor house at User:LordSwad (MfD discussion). That is possibly a better tonic than taking the quiz at User talk:JzG#Quick quiz, which Drmies claims xe got the right answer to before Googling it. Or indeed than Draft:Mandl's Paint. Pack one of the books from User:Uncle G/Pacifica Crisis#Further reading in your travel bag. Lasar 2006 is interesting. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your RfA comment

Your comment was altered in this edit and changes what you mean. I don't want get in mess of repairing it, as his edit is now not easily undoable. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Don't worry. I've rephrased it anyway, because it wasn't brilliant to begin with. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Lip service

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated restoration of NFCC violations

Enjoy. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein

BK, I saw and support your comments about Sandstein's involved action, at AN/I. I didn't comment there, due to my own trouble there, but did at the Eric Corbett AE case. I don't know why Sandstein keeps getting away with this stuff; this time the 24 hour red herring was enough distraction from the main issue, it seems. I said something in a few places, including his talk page, I'm pretty sure he noticed. So it stung today when he retaliated, claiming "I'm not familiar with this editor", as if to claim he's being neutral. He has a long history of involved actions, and complaints against them, in which I joined in criticizing him, going way back: 2014, 2013. Maybe he doesn't recognize me, but then why the nasty posting about me, days after I criticized his behavior and whacked him with a trout? Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"Super"

• large-calibre artillery (AfD discussion)
• Supergun affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It turns out that the 2004 attempt to write about a piece of U.K. political history got turned into a recitation of big guns throughout history. even though there is no proper category of weaponry named "supergun", and Wikipedia never gained an article on what was originally being written about. If any lurkers like this stuff, here you go. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please end this

I am sorry to bother you, but I picked a random admin who has posted on ANI recently and it was you. Please deal with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_who_still_hasn't_learned_about_copyright,_NPOV,_original_research_and_reliable_sources It's an eyesore and it's very clear the editor has serious CIR issues. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D9AA:ABD4:5421:5856 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Westpac Indian Film Festival of Sydney

Hi there! Not sure if you would remember it, but there have been long running BLP issues at Indian Film Festival of Melbourne, to which you reapplied protection to back in July. that seems to have solved the problem there, however, the Westpac Indian Film Festival of Sydney is run by the same organiser so that article is now the focus of attention - I reverted a blocked sock on 16 August,(adding the exact same stuff as on the Melb. Film festival) then an IP came in two days later and re added it, so I think it may need protection too. Or should I request it at WP:RPP ? Curdle (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've EC protected it like the other article, for some reason I hadn't put it on my watchlist. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thankyou! The same person also seems to have a beef with Peter Varghese as well, but that one is already protected. Curdle (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

OTD

FYI, best way to remove a blurb from OTD is to cut and paste it to the correct chronological place in the section above labelled Eligible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know, but I wanted to make it clear that it was removed purely for space issues rather than anything else (and also that it should run in 2020). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)