User talk:Black Kite/Archive 40

Closure of discussion about Abortion article titles
Hi Black Kite. In the case Abortion, the main remedy established a community discussion to decide which title the associated article should use. The committee decided at that time to appoint three experienced administrators to close the discussion. With the community discussion beginning, we are looking to appoint these three administrators, and you were suggested as one such administrator. Would you be willing to close the discussion, when it has concluded? If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or another arbitrator on our talk pages (or the mailing list, if you prefer e-mail). Regards, AGK  [•] 22:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you have declared yourself as somewhere between fully and semi-retired, but hopefully this will count as a useful thing :). AGK  [•] 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Black Kite (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DriverScanner
Hello! I noticed that you've closed two similar discussions: Articles for deletion/RegistryBooster and Articles for deletion/SpeedUpMyPC. There is the thir one left with the same set of sources (the same link, actually) and voices layout: Articles for deletion/DriverScanner. Could you please have a look? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There were 70 items in the day's AFD log - I haven't finished yet - I will get to it :) Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your forgot to remove the AfD notice on this page
Please remove this notice as well since it is no longer relevant. thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thanks - odd that, I did the 1990 and 2010 one and missed the one in the middle! Black Kite (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD/Softworks Limited
I'm surprised you went with "Delete" on this, as opposed to at least "No consensus" or relisting. The final comment is from the original nominator who noticed that there were more potential sources available that "looked promising". Just because nobody had the time to follow these up, it does not necessarily mean that "Delete" was the strongest argument. --Ritchie333 (talk)  12:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did notice that, but with 3 Deletes and a Weak Keep the result wasn't really in doubt at this point. If you'd like me to userfy the deleted article so that it can be improved, though, I'd be happy to. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't feel that strongly about the article to be honest. Thanks for the feedback, though. --Ritchie333 (talk)  10:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Kickboxing in 2011
How can you decide to delete this despite there're more number of 'keep' votes than 'delete'? You have deleted an artice in which around 60% of athletes featured are genuine articles at Wikipedia. They are decent competitors of decent campaigns. Why why why!!!!!????? I dont understand! Umi1903 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the reasons given at the top of the AfD. In addition, two of the Keep votes were from the same user.  Given that, there were four Delete votes and four Keep votes; and, as I say, none of the Keep votes explained why the article should remain, whilst the Delete votes made it clear that Wikipedia is not a sports result listing service. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kickboxing in 2011/12
If Wikipedia is not sports result listing service why don't you delete for example "List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners" etc... This should be "the free encyclopedia"... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are the individual bouts notable in themselves? Because every match listed in your example certainly is.  It's a notability issue more than it is a listing issue. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association
Hi, I saw that you closed Articles for deletion/International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender &. You may be surprised that as the solitary delete voter in a nine-against one discussion I am seriously considering taking this to Deletion Review. The thing is that after very extensive searching we only found 9 sources (they are listed and numbered in the AfD). Only three of them (4, 6 and 8) are independent, 4 is the name in a list and 8 is someone giving an affiliation. 6 is a commentary on some conference talks and says nothing about the subject. So the question is whether this can possibly be stretched to satisfy WP:GNG. Did you check the sources in the AfD to see how weak they are? Or is that even part of the task of closing an AfD? Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is down to the commenters at the AfD to evaluate the strength of sources. Whilst closing admins do sometimes look at sources, personally I would really only do this if it was a matter of BLP, for instance.  Quite apart from the time issues of doing this, admins would always leave themselves open to accusations of supervoting if they used their own analysis.  Whilst AfD is definitely not a vote count, I couldn't see any other real way of closing this AfD.  But do feel free to take it to DRV, that's not a problem at all. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't want to imply that you did anything wrong, I just wanted to check that you weren't endorsing their claims, which are so far from the sources that I got annoyed by them. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Irish/Australian footballer
Hi there, I almost wrote this a few days ago to another admin, who also closed two Irish/Australian footballer as no consensus, but thought that maybe I was being overly precious of my view. When I saw you also close one as no consensus, I thought that you must have just been counting !votes, not evaluating the arguments, but I see above that you've got other users arguing the from the exact opposite viewpoint, so that isn't it. But now I see that you closed one as delete, but the others as no consensus, and that's just confused the hell out of me.

I think in total there were 10 of these extremely borderline footballers, I !voted weak keep on two as I think they'd played top level GAA, but delete on the others as the previous keep votes were absolutely flawed in their assessment of the Australian Football International Cup importance. If one of these Int Cup players (Liam O'Connor (Irish footballer)) is deemed non-notable then surely all of these players who haven't played at any higher level must also be non-notable. The problem is that with 10 separate AFDs we either cut and pasted our comments into each one, or only put it on one, as Lankiveil did, which helped to push it over the delete line. Despite being listed on delsort and relisted multiple times, there were generally only 4 participants, the nomination and me for deletion (plus Lankiveil for one) and two for keep, both of who made false statements about the importance of the International Cup competition. It is in no way the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football." It's a development comp that tries to pretend that one day some other country may play AFL, but we all know it aint going to happen. Yes it gets some media, but normally only because the AFL gets some retired stars to coach a team or two, and it's covered in the "funny story of the week" section, not the main sports section. Is there anyway that you can change your mind, or do we need to do another AFD or DRV?

I'm struggling to think that mentions of the player's names in match reports satisfies the WP:GNG - ie for Joe Cunnane - the three refs provided in the AFD are (in total) ''"Its running was hard and aggressive and it had players with real presence such as forward Alan Coomey, ruckman Joe Cunnane and midfielder Aaron Flood.", "and two players, Joe Cunnane and David Stynes (younger brother of Melbourne FC President, Jim) will be hoping to secure their second winners medals having been on the winning team in the inaugural International Cup in 2002." and "and Alan Coomey, David Stynes and Joe Cunnane are seeking their second win having been on the 2002 team."'' The other refs in the actual article are similarly brief and insignificant, or from non-independent sources. So, can you help, or should I just try a single combined AFD sometime in the future. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

About my Ban period
Hello,

Is it expired already?

Last time I asked someone about my ban being over, I got no reply from the editor who banned.

I got to be more cautious this time around. That is why the query.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति  Humour Thisthat2011 15:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Greg Branson
Hello. You closed the deletion discussion for the article Greg Branson and deleted it. I noticed today that an editor has recreated the article and slapped in one additional reference citing the fact that the charity exists. I have nominated for speedy delete. Connolly15 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Review
Please review the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tiamut Regardless if I am sanctioned, I would really like the antisemitic content removed. Regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Body Sensor Network Page
Dear Black Kite,

You have removed the Body Sensor Network page and redirect it to the Body Area Network page some time ago before taking a wikibreak vacation. I have bought it up for deletion review (Please check on the log on November 25, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November). With all the references to support the difference between the two pages, Hobit has kindly helped to usersify the page so I can develop it to be more neutral (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Airuko and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hobit/Body_Sensor_Networks). While I am waiting for his comments, he also started to take a wiki-leave. It has been over a month now that I did not hear from him. Could you please have a look at the Body Sensor Networks page again and give me some advices if there is anything else should be adjusted. If it looks fine, could you please bring it back to live as a separate wiki page?

Thank you very much for your help. (Airuko (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

Uninvolved admin help
Hello Black Kite. Your name comes to me from the past as a fair and well respected administrator. I was hoping to get you to weigh in on some controversy at Circumcision. Please feel free to disagree with me and I will respect your opinion. If your busy or just don't want to get involved, I understand completely. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've read the talkpage and realise there's a number of issues involved; if it's not too much trouble, could you give me a summary of the problems editors are encountering? I'd be happy to take a look. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure and thank you. Basically there is an RFC about our medical summary (which should be closed by now), and HIV's prominence in the lead.  Personally I feel the pro circ side is getting deferential treatment and abides by its own rules.  New editors who feel the page is slanted towards pro circumcision are typically driven off and you can see how hostile most of the talk page is.  One needs a wiki law degree and/or RFC to get just about anything done and even then... Sorry I'm rambeling but i'm just frustrated.  Thanks again for your time.  Garycompugeek (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

EFC Africa
Extreme Fighting Championship Africa - I'm not interested in this or any other sport, but I believe it was a mistake to delete the page. I believed that when it was deleted, but more so now. The article regarded a very popular sport in South Africa, and, despite its popularity, there is no representation on Wikipedia for anyone seeking further information. The article was deleted, from what I can recall of the discussion, due to its not meeting notability guidelines. I was reminded to voice my objection to its deletion by this article, which, surely, identifies the topic as at least "notable:"

http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/EFC-AFRICA-smashes-TV-ratings-20120315

Thanks for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good source. Do you need the old version restoring to userspace so you can work on it? Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

OMMAC deletion
I just noticed that there are two further articles which should be deleted as per the discussion at OMMAC 1. They are OMMAC 9 and OMMAC 10. Bjmullan (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E
Hi Black Kite. Thanks for taking on the task of closing Articles for deletion/American Idol (season 11) finalists. I want to ask you about a comment in your closing statement. As I was trying to say in my statement in the AfD, I had always understood BLP1E as having the intention of protecting the privacy of individuals who are caught up in media coverage through no fault of their own. And I had interpreted that to mean that someone who chooses to go on national television week after week as part of a contest would not be considered a "low-profile" individual. I thought that was clear from past discussions of American Idol contestants: take a look at Postdlf's comments here and here from last year. Are Postdlf and I misunderstanding BLP1E and its purpose? Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but one could argue that someone who has appeared on a single TV talent programme and finished 12th is hardly "high profile", either. It completely depends on the person. Regardless, such individuals really need sourcing that lies outside that event, otherwise they should be merged to the programme itself, such is WP:N.  In fact, I think I'll go back and re-word that close, because you've got a point there. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great; thanks for that adjustment. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoring pages to userspace
Would it be possible if you can restore the deleted pages of Wide left and Harbaugh Bowl with their full edit histories in my userspace? I am planning on forming discussions regarding them, and I want them to be visible somewhere, since I will likely refer to them and want people participating in the discussions to be able to see them. Hellno2 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Small request
Black Kite, I have a small favor to ask. In reviewing my AfD participation over the last two years, i note that my WP signature did not appear on this "Delete" vote here. You were the closing administrator. Would you mind either adding my omitted signature, or giving me express permission to do so? I do not want to alter the closed AfD without your participation, as I know that is very bad form. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine to add it. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Voting mechanism for Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
Hello. Over at Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, we have been trying to figure out exactly how the vote that ArbCom called for should be carried out, in particular in a proposal to use Borda Count for the purpose. Upon requesting clarification from ArbCom in the matter, it was suggested that the closing admins be asked for their input, since after all it's you who'll have to read the results. So, if you would be kind as to, at your convenience, provide your input into the current voting format proposal, or suggest other measures, it would be a great help. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jad Shwery page
Hi, is it possible to create a new page for Jad Shwery, whose first page was deleted by you? I wanted to do it already but I thought it'd be more better to contact you first since you're the one who deleted it. Thanks! --LoveAndArt (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the initial article was deleted because it was a poorly-sourced biography, it would probably be best to create the article in your userspace first, for instance at User:LoveAndArt/Jad Shwery (click on the redlink to create) and then post at the deletion review page. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Shakehandsman
HI BK sorry to bother you with this but I’d like a sanity check here:

I just noticed that I am banned from Shakehandsman’s talk page – apparently on the basis of "more than enough proof". But I have no idea as regards proof of what?!

Shakehandsman as a history of using his talk page as a platform to attack user groups he dislikes. This point regarding AGF has been raised with him before. KillerChihuahua pointed out that the introduction to their page breaches AGF but that convo (in late 2011) ended with Shakehandsman claiming KC was mistaken and that there was no problem with his page (see here).

For my own part I must say that kind of personalized attack claiming my conduct towards Shakehandsman is inappropriate and asking others to be aware of [that] behaviour towards him (without instancing one single diff or an iota of proof of what exactly he is claiming) is both incendiary and utterly uncalled for. I have had no direct interaction with this user whatsoever in years. And furthermore I have not behaved in any way inappropriately towards him at all ever. My only possible action to cause this was a comment I made at the RFCU openned by DeliciousCarbuncle on Shakehandsman which evidently he deems inappropriate conduct.

I fully recognize that he doesn’t like what I am or others are saying about his conduct on BLPs, but that is not grounds for this kind of action and indeed shows that this user is not taking onboard the outside input that was requested at that RFCU.

Also I will draw your attention to this conversation between Shakehandsman and Cybermud. As well as these new remarks (as of Feb 2012) on his page in wild violation of AGF.

Am I overreacting here, or this as bad as I think? From where I stand vis-à-vis WP:5, this kind of "no trespass signage" strays well is beyond the acceptable: it’s flamebait, it attacks specific users as well as broad categories of user groups (those whom this user believes are biased) and speculates wildly on the motivations of all the above for editing WP.

If you get a chance have a look and let me know what you think--Cailil  talk 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Blackout 00
Since you deleted Blackout 00, can you please delete Project Impossible as well? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Last man Jack
Good close.

Do you think I'd need to go to DRV in order to create a substantially different Man Jack article, which could have redirects from both "every" and "last"?

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You'd only have to do that for the article that was afd'd; the redirect was only deleted because it was pointing to a redlink, not because it failed any policy. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned about including any sourced information about cricket, following the AfDd LMJ article. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If any exists I would be interested to see it - as a lifelong cricket fan I've never heard the phrase. "Last man" yes, but not "Jack". If you do find some, of course it would be fine to include it. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your request
Thanks for your message, just to let you know I will be replying to your request in full and I didn't want you to think I was ignoring it. It's just that there's a rather more pressing and related matter which I also need to attend to.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Apologies for the delay but I had quite a bit to write. I'm not sure where to start really with regards to the myths posted above but I'm more than happy to explain the situation to you and appreciate the interest in the harassment and attacks I've been facing. It's all a bit involved I'm afraid so I'll simply be handling your specific request for now and deal with any other lesser issues once that is settled.

Firstly, there is no "interaction" ban is suggested. I am simply seeking to minimise contact and/or attack from editors who are hostile towards me and who's conduct troubles me. I tend to find that editors are more hostile on my talk page than in other places because any inappropriate actions elsewhere attract more scrutiny, thereby giving me some degree of protection. I realise I am powerless to stop anyone from posting on my talk page, though aside from one blatant incident early on it seems to work quite well. Cailil has been kind enough to abide by the request to-date, which is something I appreciate and commend him for and I'm optimistic that this marks a change in his editing from now onwards. I've had the pleasure in the past of welcoming other editors back to my talk page after they gave a sincere apology and that option remains open to Cailil. In recognition of the respect Caili has shown for my request I'd like to reciprocate in some way. Even without an apology this improved level of respect means I no longer feel the need for all my talk page viewers to aware of the situation and therefore have now hid his name on the list from public view. A further factor that facilitates this is that his conduct is the least bad of those subject to the request. (Unrelated to Cailil I will actually be removing all diffs from the top of the talk page, what occurred at RFC/U demonstrates what I've been subjected to far better than almost all of the diffs and my talk pages are so complete and transparent and complete that much information is also accessible there.

Onto some of the issues raised. I'm not against contact with other Wikipedia editors, on the contrary, I aim to be completely open and transparent in my actions on Wikipedia. I never censor or selectively archive my talk page as some others do and always prefer to refute any criticisms and attacks with evidence. I've been here for 6 years and generally manage to get along very well with almost all Wikipedia editors. Having experienced serious harassment and intimidation on more than one occasion I realise how unpleasant it is and as a result I try to be polite and courteous. As a result I take an extremely dim view of uncivil conduct. I only request people not to post on my talk page when there are repeated examples of hostility, incivility towards me or troubling editing. I firmly believe people should take responsibility for their actions and apologise, particularly when they cause problems or distress. There have to be multiple incidents for me to make the request (all unapologised for) so it's pretty difficult to become subject to one. I can assure people that any such arrangement is reciprocal and I stay well away from the talk page of the editors in question (and generally have always done so well before the need for the request finally arose in an attempt to diffuse any situation). My track record here shows I'm not the sort of person to go seeking confrontation, and I'm not stupid enough to do so with people more powerful and influential than myself either.

I haven't really appreciated some of Cailil's previous interactions with me on Wikipedia and his endorsement of bogus evidence at the harassing RFC/U was the point I decided the request had to be made. Some of the bad faith and total misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policy in the RFC/U by others was quite shocking and I found the overall experience to be so distressing that I had to leave the project for a time, something I've never done before. His comments above are hugely inaccurate, this has absolutely nothing to do with WP:IDL and I'm perfectly happy for editors to give constructive criticism and feedback. What I really don't like is incivility, bullying, lies and half-truths, one-sided behaviour, bad faith, COI and personal attacks. All of these were clearly present at the RFC/U or the short amount of time leading up to it and that's not simply my view but that of multiple uninvolved parties too.

Although Cailil wrote relatively little at the RFC/U, jumping in to the case without acknowledging the above issues is pretty poor and one-sided behaviour by an admin, and endorsing the case as well and particularly the false evidence is quite clearly unacceptable. I'm sure any reasonable person can see why I would not want any contact with anyone who had done so. At least 60% of what was provided was clearly total nonsense and was thoroughly exposed as such (and the debunking was completed well before Cailil's endorsement) A further 15% was in fact examples of editing of which I am hugely proud, the type of thing an editor would submit were they to run to be an admin here! Again, contrary to his claims, I'm not denying making the occasional error in the past and any which occurred I admitted too and explained and were clearly down to misunderstandings of policy usually from very early on in my time here and I think it's AGF breach per Ignorantia juris may excuse to scrutinise an editor's earliest contributions when they have clearly developed to such a significant extent from then (right up to creating a Good article almost single-handedly the day before the RFC began). Basically I think it's completely wrong how all Wikipedia rules, most notably WP:AGF, (which Cailil himself is so keen to bring up), went out the window at the RFC as did even the fundamental concepts such as a space being reserved for my response, with such an abuse continuing even after I highlighted how incredibly inappropriate it was. I'd also remind those people viewing the case to please be aware that I've given up debunking misinformation that one editor posts on Wikipedia about me, (and I also only debunked the so called evidence when 12 points were in place) so please don't assume that any comment has any validity simply because it remains in place unchallenged. I realise Cailil's behaviour was less inappropriate than a number of others, but to endorse half-truths, lies and misinformation and people basically pretending black is white gives their claims added credence, therefore any person doing so is supporting and effectively encouraging the harassment.

Cailil claims that I am "not taking onboard the outside input that was requested at that RFC/U." Once again this is 100% false. "Outside" means uninvolved neutral parties, which in my case quite clearly excludes anyone passionate about gender issues as well as the less pleasant editors who had attacked me repeatedly. Therefore we have to exclude Off2riorob, DC, Slp1 and Cailil (not to mention the supportive comments of Cybermud on my talk page). Of course we have to exclude myself as well, leaving Jayen266, Exok and Keristrasza, meaning the later two have a clear majority by 2:1. I fully endorse, appreciate and "take onboard" pretty much every single syllable of their input, both in the RFC/U, on various other noticeboards and on talk pages and I suggest Cailil does the same. You don't have to take my word for it that they called things 100% correctly either, nor even theirs. The harassment and attacks on me by some of those bringing the case continues to this day, and just as at the time of the RFC/U no one with any authority has bothered to deal with it either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; there's a lot there which I'll look at later today. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing from me. In my experience, Shakehandsman applies very different standards for himself (and his friends) and those he describes as "less pleasant editors". For instance, false accusations of wikihounding, sockpuppetry and calling someone "SonicSpoof" are considered uncivil (incivil?), right? Please consider this exchange between Shakehandsman and Cybermud. In case you are wondering who (whom?) they refer to as "wikihounder", "sockpuppet", and "SonicSpoof", yes, that is me, but in speculations about sockpuppetry, they also refer to admin Slp1 and user Nick Levinson. Far from "civil" and the reason why I stopped editing for three months. In fact, Shakehandsman's nonsense still mars my talk page; Shakehandsman has never bothered to apologize. The fact that he tries to characterize perfectly legitimate concerns about his editing voiced by very experienced and respected users as "harassment" yet continues to attack specific users, citing unspecified instances of alleged "harassment", "bias" and ideological differences on his talk page is another example of this inconsistency. The emotive verbiage ("incivility, bullying, lies and half-truths, one-sided behaviour, bad faith, COI and personal attacks", "bogus, false evidence", "harassing", "abuse", "bad faith and total misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policy" and "one-sided behavior") cannot hide the fact that he continues to fail wp:agf and wp:civil in making unspecified accusations of bias, harassment, lies, "gender feminist" POV etc. etc. against other users. His talk page has degenerated into an ideological battleground where he can denounce other users as he sees fit. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet again SonicYouth86 conflating Cybermud's actions and mine. You've made countless false statements pretending actions and words uttered by Cybermud were somehow also committed by me and you've been asked to stop doing this numerous times, you've even written false headings stating I have responsibility for an action which was clearly absolutely nothing to do with me and I see this remains in place to this day. The above use of the term "they" is blatantly a continuation of the exact same disgraceful behaviour. I will not take responsibility for actions solely committed by other people and don't appreciate your constant attempts at guilt by association. Your post and almost all your interactions with me on Wikipedia give significant further weight to my concerns and I'd encourage people to examine them fully.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC) (probably shouldn't have even responded here, apologies to Bwilkins for doing so)
 * Good grief. You say that you "take an extremely dim view of uncivil conduct". I have linked to a conversation where you (that is yourself, as opposed to Cybermud or someone else) call me a "wikihounder", "sockpuppet", accuse me of "harassment", speculate if admin Slp1 is me, and do not object to personal attacks against me. Clearly, these two are inconsistent with each other. As inconsistent as your baseless allegations against other users and your simultaneous absurd claims that you're being victimized. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a bigger problem here than the individual users named. Your notice also asks anyone involved in gender studies to not post on your talk page. You frequently edit in areas covered by gender studies, and gender studies is a mainstream academic discipline. I feel like an asshole quoting a policy in this context, but to quote WP:NPOV, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Whether or not you agree with mainstream gender studies viewpoints, you have to admit that they are mainstream academic viewpoints. It's really hard to believe that you are willing to edit in a NPOV fashion in gender related articles when you aren't even willing to interact with people who participate in a major mainstream academic discipline that is directly relevant to them. I've seen and appreciate your work elsewhere, but, imo, you should either remove the general prohibition from your userpage or you should voluntarily cease editing any mainspace pages which gender studies is relevant to. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Your notice also asks anyone involved in gender studies to not post on your talk page", A nice bit of selective quoting there, thanks, though you're not the first to reinterpret the words to make them say what you think it says as a result of POV. Those reinventing my statements like this are breaching AGF and it is not at all appreciated. The fact multiple editors have read things into statements that clearly aren't there indicates the NPOV issue clearly lies with others. Thanks for the words of praise, but I've long since abandoned significant contributions to any of the main gender related articles as the atmosphere within them is so poisonous, sexist and one-sided and even making the basic contributions is no longer possible. I'm also trying my best to avoid interaction with a number of editors completely, therefore making such a step necessary twice over.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reply to me, frankly, kind of floors me. This is as far as I know the first interaction I've ever had with you, and certainly the first about your talk page. If you think I misinterpreted your words, the appropriate action for you to take would have been for you to explain how I was misinterpreting your words - not to accuse me of reinventing your words/breaching AGF/having NPOV issues.


 * When multiple people all misinterpret what you have written, it could be some vast conspiracy to suppress you, or it could be that the current wording you use doesn't seem to say what you mean it to say. The way your talk page stands, an average passerby will interpret it as saying "If you agree with mainstream academic gender studies viewpoints then you are not welcome to post on my page."  If that's not what you mean, then reword your talk page so that your meaning is clear.  If that is what you mean, then it's fundamentally incompatible with you continuing to edit any page at all related to gender on Wikipedia. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes that you made while I was typing this post address, in substantial part, my concern. I'm still a bit floored by your initial response to me, but thank you for at least changing the wording of your notice on talk. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I specifically quoted your false statement and already noted it was selective quoting, I wouldn't have thought I'd have to explain any further than that but I will do so anyway. Gender studies persons have never, ever, ever been barred from my talk page and never ever will be. Only a specific subset is not welcome and given the other aspects of the sentence regarding editing neutrally probably be due a Wikipedia ban anyway. Please read and quote full sentences in future and strike your mistakes above. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the complete sentence that I partially quoted above: "For the avoidance of doubt anyone involved in gender studies is included in this request unless there is evidence of neutral editing or they reject current prevailing gender studies ideologies." The meaning is not substantially different than what I originally quoted.  I made no false statements, and I will not be striking any of my comments; take me to WP:ANI over them if you feel like it, it'll boomerang on you. Your talk page statement, as it originally stood, forbade anyone involved in gender studies (a mainstream academic discipline) who did not reject the prevailing (mainstream, academic) ideology of the field from editing your page except for people covered by the nebulous requirement of "evidence of neutral editing" (which would, given Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, mean pro-gender studies editing, anyway.)  Trying to forbid people who do not repudiate a mainstream academic field that your editing touches heavily upon from editing your talk page is significantly problematic. If that's not what you meant, that's fine and good, but you cannot get offended at me for a simple reading of what your page directly said. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You've acknowledged the full quote so in the interests of moving on that will suffice. If my initial response was taken to be discourteous then I apologise, but I'm on-edge at the moment due to on-going harassment I'm experiencing, and along with other people repeatedly, deliberately and blatantly misquoting me on unrelated matters I'm rather sensitive to such things at present. I'd like to publicly express my thanks to User:KillerChihuahua for helping me come up with constructive ideas for the best wording and doing so in a friendly manner.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your input. I'm very busy for the next couple of days, but I'm going to look at everything posted above at the weekend.  Please feel free to post anything else which you feel to be useful here.  Best, Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just by way of clarification BK. Shakehandsman has implied that I was involved in content issues with him surrounding his RFC this is not accurate. Furthermore he has inferred that all the listed users (I'm including myself in this category even though SHM has commented my username out) have harassed or otherwise been uncivil to him, and he considers the RFC suitable evidence of inappropriate conduct by all those listed. Again this is neither accurate nor evidenced (or indeed evincible). Please note the abject lack of diffs. Indeed SHM claims that I have something to apologize for - I don't, and if he wants to keep casting such aspersions he needs to show some serious evidence. And I would say the same in the case of his claims about Slp1 - there is no evidence of harassment. Disputing disputable claims (be it under OR, RS or BLP issues) is not hostility - it's what we're here for as wikipedians. Not liking what others have to say wrt to his conduct, edits and site policy is neither incivility nor harassment, and such claims damage the credibility of these policies in dealing with actual cyber or real-life stalking/harassment/bullying on WP. Indeed the RFCU process is for the precise purpose of comenting on the edits and behaviour of editors so that they will learn from these points. Furthermore as a sysop I don't accept that any ideological (or nationalist, or otherwise)no-trespassing signage on anyone's talk page, worded in whatever way, is at all appropriate (or in line with WP:UP) in any situation. Talkpages are not here to infer misconduct or otherwise cast aspersions about other editors named or not. Nor are they here to act as a soapbox for or against any POV (mainstream or fringe)--Cailil  talk 13:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * I'll comment as my name is mentioned above and I am one of the "banned" editors, but as I'm exceptionally busy in real life, this will have to be brief. I am glad that Shakehandsman has made some changes based on KillerChihuahua and Kevin's input here and on his talkpage but agree with KC and Cailil that the section remains problematic and an impediment to collaborative editing in the longterm..  It is a sign of a battleground mentality to limit those who can post based on (highly selective) ideological grounds - as an aside, it seems strange for someone who says he is interested in gender equality and neutral editing that only misandrists are banned.  What about those with a misogynist outlook?
 * Shakeshandsman complains loudly of harassment etc, but WP:HA specifically excludes the expression of legitimate concerns about editing. Indeed, at a certain point, unsupported claims of harassment become harassment in themselves per WP:AOHA. Following dispute resolution procedures including warning an editor about BLP violations is not harassment. The fact is that well before Requests for comment/Shakehandsman, Shakeshandsman's edits have been the subject of criticisms about neutrality and BLP violations from administrators other than myself: [. This is clearly not the place to rerun the RFC/U, but as noted in the close of no consensus/lack of interest, the only opposition to the RFC was a procedural in nature, and indeed despite claims to have thoroughly debunked the "bogus evidence" at the RFC/U, no other editor endorsed this debunking.
 * Finally, I don't really care whether I am banned from his talkpage or not; there is likely an aspect of poisoning the well and attempts to avoid scrutiny in doing so, but overall I believe the notice says more about Shakeshandsman than it does about me or the other editors listed there. However, as pointed out in part by Killerchihuahua, I would urge Shakeshandsman to consider that the prohibition has the potential to backfire for him; instead of being able to deal with editing concerns semi-privately, the ban (both of individual editors and those with an academic view that he disagrees with,) means that editing disputes necessarily have to be escalated to involve other editors and potentially to dramah boards. This very discussion proves this point quite well.--Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure much of the above even merits a response given that people are blatantly refusing to read the points I (and many others) write and we're mostly just wasting time here if people are just going to ignore the key points that others write. There seems to be a view that if an RFC/U manages to highlight one minor mistake then somehow it magically becomes entirely proper and, in particular, any harassing behaviour related to it or within it become perfectly acceptable and all rules and respect can suddenly go out the window. Such a one-sided approach to the issues is far more of an indication of any battleground mentality than I could ever be accused of and rather more besides. There has been so much text written by the above and in one case so many hours spent examining incredibly trivial mistakes I made five years ago yet still not one single word acknowledging some of the things that have happened to me. Whataboutary aside, Slp1 does ask a somewhat interesting question about whether misogynists would be welcome on my talk page, though the question results yet again from failing to properly read the text. As it clearly says the notice is in place "due to the present biases" and therefore I hope it will be temporary measure. Were Wikipedia an unbiased and neutral environment with regard to gender issues where all editors and groups of people were treated with the same fairness and respect then the notice would not be in place. Should the current problems and biases one day somehow be spectacularly turned on their head and should my editing be significantly impacted by such an unlikely change then then her suggestion would have relevance, though ideally I'd actually like to be in a position to be able to welcome everyone. Anyway, it's clear we're not touching on any of the real issues here which is a real shame. I've consistently shown a willingness to listen to input from others, until others are able to do the same then we'll never get anywhere.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see that Cailil has been removed from the user page in question. However, this - "Regrettably, due to the present biases on Wikipedia, anyone with a misandrist or gender feminist outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post here please. For the avoidance of doubt anyone involved in gender studies is welcome so long as they can edit neutrally or reject any prevailing sexist gender studies ideologies." still concerns me.  If you are involved in editing a controversial area then it is clear that you are probably going to be involved in some disagreements; therefore to have a notice on your talkpage which, whilst I understand that it has been edited, is still so convoluted that it could be used to effectively bar anyone whose POV you disagree with, is not optimal.  My advice would be to remove it completely.  My view, and I believe the community's view on this matter is that you would have to prove a concerted campaign of disruptive behaviour towards yourself in order to unilaterally bar editors from your talkpage.  In my opinion editing disagreements, however heated, do not reach to this level in this example. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the above I can only imagine you haven't examined the behaviour of some of those bringing the harassing RFC/U. Amongst other things, one has continued to Wikihound me, repeatedly submitted my work for deletion (again unanimously and vocally rejected) and simultaneously called my gender into question and engaged in other attacks. These are most certainly not "editing disagreements", never have been and others have also expressed similar concerns about being on the receiving end of such behaviour. None of this and none of the previous documented cases occurring in the context of the RFC/U have ever been acknowledged by any of the above (or even hinted at), and no action has been taken by anyone. If admins are so lacking in impartiality that they are going to complain about my own talkpage yet ignore such blatant abuses, essentially pretend they never happened (and take the side of those committing them), then at the very least I'm well within my rights to politely ask them to keep their communications with me to more public forums. Can I suggest you please actually examine and deal with the root cause here and the real issue rather than the victim's response?--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi
So, I noticed you closed the requests for three AFD's on articles which I wrote. Well I find nothing wrong with this, I do find issue in how they were closed. Two of the deletion requests had a majority opinion on merge, while one was a 50/50 split. While none of them advocated for a redirect, you redirected all three of them. I'm really curious as to your response on this, as I really see no reason that they could not have just been merged into the wing article itself. I'm sorry if this comes across as comes across the wrong way, but I am perplexed at the close rationale here. I look forward to your response, and have a great day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi- could you point me towards the AFDs please? I close a lot of them... thanks Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * this one. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks; I'll have a look tomorrow, it's well past midnight here. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't need to; per Articles_for_deletion/1965_EC-121H_Warning_Star_crash, there is generally a case to be made that the incident should be included in the main article, but they already are (hence the redirect); I'm unsure if anything more than the general fact of the accident occurring needs to be mentioned in the main article, but if that is the case, as I mentioned in my first close, the history is still there for editors to add that information. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from, but I think that it would be better to judge each one individually. Just because one says something, doesn't mean that they all are the same. Still, there are links in the articles to each incident, which then results in a circular redirect, so that is an issue that can easily be corrected. Maybe I have a locality bias, but I seem to hear of them more than other crashes, so an article on the trifecta might also be necessary. Are you open to having these reopened, as I would like to see the discussion go a bit further so that we could get more of an idea of what's up, rather than a slim majority. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Images Removed
Fangface

On the page I edited, you have removed all the images saying "fixing non-free images issues per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFLISTS)". There are no free versions of these.  Some of the companies that made the items listed are out of business, but as to the status of copyrights for those dead businesses I don't know.  I am using very small representations of the items to show their appearance.  These items will in no way affect the ability of a copyright holder to publish or sell an item.  For instance, the books shown were only the front covers which represented the titles and front artwork of the books.  The contents of the books are not shown period.  This means if the book publisher still exists, they could very easily re-publish this book without any damage due to the said images.  The same is true for the other items.

I can't understand why these are erased yet other articles contain obvious photos of items which are also from copyrighted works.

Also, what about this article which I had overlooked in fair usage in which I ensured the photos were big enough to show was was needed but not any larger. Fair_use/Definition_of_%22low_resolution%22

As for the origin of all the merchandise images, here is the breakdown of the origins for you:

SCANNED BY ME

      ''

PHOTOGRAPHED BY ME

 

If I misclassified the ones I uploaded, then tell me how I should label them and I will make the appropriate changes. Also, what is the point of having the ability to label the images as such if they are just going to be deleted? All you've done then is wasted someone's time. If absolutely no non-free images are allowed them state it clearly so people like myself will not waste their time scanning or photographing items and uploading them.

Cringer (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with how they're classified, but did you actually read the links in my edit? There is a longstanding consensus that we don't use an individual non-free image to label every item in a list, because such usage is clearly not minimal use and isn't necessary for understanding of the article.  This doesn't just apply to articles such as this; take a look around Wikipedia at discographies, lists of TV episodes, list of characters etc. and you'll see that none have (or should have) a non-free image per list item.  There is also the issue of whether the information in this table is notable enough to be included in such detail regardless - a simple list of video releases and a mention of the other merchandise would probably suffice. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, there is the other issue. I had another editor oppose the information I provided about the board game, stating I had no citation for the source of the material.  Even though I stated I owned the board game, they apparently didn't believe me.  So I posted the pictures as proof that the information was from a reliable source, which were items that I owned.  Now, if these are removed, I have no way of showing the information came from a citable source, according to the other person that time, simply because there are no web site links.  Why no web site links?  These companies made these products at a time when the internet didn't exist in the public forum, and thus they simply did not have a web site.  I realize that some may exist now, but the likely hood of them digging up and posting information on products that were released over 30 years ago is very unlikely.  So will citing the board game as "Fangface Parker Brothers Board Game Box Front" for information gathered from the front of the box satisfy the requirements for a citation?  If not, how can I prove that I obtained the information off the box, which is an obvious reliable source since it's the product itself?  I am just asking about this one, since the others are also cited from the products which I obtained the information from.
 * As for the issue of whether or not information in the table is notable enough to be included in such detail, that will be a matter of opinion. Your opinion, mine, and others may not agree on that.  Some may feel that the pictures would only enhance the information by giving a visual of the item being talked about.  Some may think text is enough.  Some may be in the middle.  You said the items are not needed because it's not necessary for the understanding of the article.  If that's the case, it means that no photos are technically necessary for any article, whether it be a magazine cover, series title logo, character photo, etc.
 * Cringer (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point. A non-free image may be used where it is necessary for the understanding of the article.  Clearly, a non-free image of a board game may be necessary for an article on a board game, but it clearly isn't necessary for the article it's in, which is Fangface.  The reader's understanding of that topic is clearly not enhanced by an image of a board game associated with that character.  Which is the reason why list articles are generally deprecated; for example, a non-free image of an album cover is reasonable in the article about that album, but nowhere else. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)