User talk:Black Kite/Archive 57

RevDel request
Can you delete this edit from the page history? It seems to be a sufficiently blatant BLP violation to justify doing so. Thanks, Everymorning   talk  23:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for pointing it out. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended
Dear, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Boris Kalamanos
The edit-warrior on Boris Kalamanos,, has been indef blocked. Request to unprotect.--Z oupan 20:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed
An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:


 * 1) User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned.  Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
 * 2) User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.  They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
 * 3) User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring.  In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page.  This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Talkback
I noticed you're currently on a break, so this is a reminder for when you get back :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back to en.wiki.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy
Extra opinions are necessary at Talk:Székely_Land regarding the inclusion of the name. Thanks in advance for your help. 178.143.92.15 (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Philandry
Upon creation of the page "Philandry", there is a banner explaining that a pre-existing Philadry page has been deleted by Black Kite. To keep things correct, I'm contacting you about the creation of this new Philandry page. Please let me know if you don't find the new page to be inside the regulations. Regards. H15 H16N355 &#124; K1N6 M3 (T47K)  03:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GFH Capital


A tag has been placed on GFH Capital requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Admin notice board
There is a discussion regarding a decision you were involved with, relating to an editor violating an agreement about the Syrian Civil War: Nulla Taciti (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Collect case
Hi. Thanks for the post at the Collect case. You make some good points. Alas, /Evidence has closed, so I moved it here. Hope that's ok. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops - sorry, I didn't realise it had closed. Been away for a few days. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. We are pursuing the novelty of a case proceeding according to the announced timetable. Radical, I know. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's certainly a new idea. Perhaps it might even become a regular thing ;) Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Heads up
User:SPACKlick wants you warned or you sanctioned for simply telling the truth. If I say that SPACKlick is an e-cig advocate will that get me into trouble? Lol! QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

help w edit war
Hi. There's a chronic edit-warrior at Irish language in Newfoundland, implicitly pushing for the idea that Newfoundland Irish is one of the primary dialects of the language by adding a language box as if it were a language/dialect. People have thanked me for reverting him, and there's discussion on the talk page about how it's not a dialect, just whatever varieties of Irish happen to be spoken in Newfoundland. Yet since he "asked first" for evidence, I'm supposed to prove a negative, and BOLD supposedly means edit-revert-edit war. Anyway, I have you on a short list of people to ask for help in these situations. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging
Pinging don't work like that, hun. You have to link and sign in the same edit. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Bloody technology. I'm back off to my abacus ;) Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened
You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Contribsx is a very loudly quacking duck of a sock of Hackneymarsh
Well, yes. But why is that grounds for a block? Having serial accounts, particularly with this long time separation, is no offence. Hackneymarsh isn't even blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the original edits under Hackneymarsh were obviously COI, but when the COI was discovered, they switched to other accounts to continue. The talkpage of Hackneymarsh and the SPI archive has more details. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have your timeline wrong. Hackneymarsh was warned about COI in 12 September 2012. But they'd stopped editing in 2010. So your when the COI was discovered, they switched to other accounts is wrong. There's no evidence that Hackneymarsh even saw those warnings; this isn't a very sophisticated user William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that Contribsx was created immediately after the Shapps article was semi'd is quite telling, no? Either: the Contribsx account is a continuation of Hackneymarsh and various other IPs, or it is a joe-job account to discredit Shapps.  If the latter situation had occurred recently (i.e. during election time) then, perhaps, yes.  But I don't believe that an account created then which edited exactly as Hackneymarsh and related accounts had, is innocent. (Also, it is useful to go back through the history of Shapps articles, there are some interesting IP edits in there, including at least one through an anonymous proxy which whitewashed the article). Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on, you're getting rather blurred.
 * First, you haven't directly responded to my criticism of your timeline; nor have you indicated explicitly that your "when the COI was discovered, they switched to other accounts to contine" is wrong. Could you do so, or dispute it? that will make things clearer.
 * Second, The fact that Contribsx was created immediately after the Shapps article was semi'd is quite telling, no? isn't clear at all. Suppose the person behind Contribsx had been editing the article anonymously - a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The article is semi'd so, he does the obvious thing, and creates an account so he can continue to edit it. Why is that at all unreasonable?
 * Third, lets suppose this is the same person as Hackneymarsh (it might be; no-one has checked, AFAIK). Why would that be at all bad? An occasioanl user, losing an account they created in 2010, and making a new one? Is that odd? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ps: Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh cos I keep losing it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm just going to step back from this one and let the silliness unfold. I'd suggest everyone else does the same. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing of Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Chambers (television personality)
There doesn't appear to be a consensus to redirect this article to the topic's spouse (most of the coverage is about the topic, not her husband anyway). A re-consideration is in order. --Oakshade (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One delete, 3 redirects, 2 keeps (of which one - not you - doesn't really make a coherent point). On that basis I think it's a reasonable close.  I'm sure that you know that WP:DRV is the next point of call (you don't need to notify me again if you go that route).  Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick block
Hi. I've commented on one of your blocks at User talk:TheGracefulSlick. For the reasons I've mentioned there, I am not sure this was a necessary block&mdash;but of course I might have missed something, and would welcome your input. I pinged you in my comments, but I've seen enough reports of pings not working lately, that I thought I'd better leave you this note here also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've replied there.  (And yes, ping seems to be broken). Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply there. PhilKnight has agreed with you and declined the unblock request. As I remain in respectful disagreement, I've posted to ANI here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So let me understand this

 * No replies to any of my questions of editors on that AfD, and you delete it prior to 7 days?
 * User BMK states this to my questions of his comments and this is allowable for Wikipedia?
 * duh, no, i only does whatz all da udders duz cause i aint got no brainses. You kmow what, you can stick your comment where the sun doesn't shine, sweetheart. If you don't like the way I !voted, based on my own personal evaluation of the material, there's nothing much you can do about it, but insulting me rates right up there at the top of the list of shit you can do which will make it absolutely certain that there's no possible chance of changing my mind. Now, stop being a jerk and hassling editors who disagree with you.(Oh, and yes, my !vote actually does count.  It's enough to make you cry, innit?)]" yet I never insulted this editor, so again he is stating something that is false.


 * "I don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. What I'm talking about ..." (yet he then goes back and edits my bold text without my permission or consent?)
 * And finally when I confronted this user they responded not with AGF attempt to resolve but: "Buzz off".

So is this new wikipolicy? Honestly can I as an editor act the way BMK did here and have a 31 RS article deleted?  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  08:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has been at AfD for 7 days.
 * BMK's editing of the talkpage comments was correct, or at least not against policy.
 * BMK is unnecessarily blunt and could do with reining in the language, but he's correct about your replies to editors on that AfD. For example, where an editor (quite correctly, as far as I can see) describes many of the sources as directories, non-secondary etc., you reply to all her comments with "False".  They aren't false.
 * Persistently attacking !voters at an AfD is not going to get them to change their minds, in fact it's more likely that they won't. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I honestly appreciate your speedy, detailed and explained response, this is something that I did not receive from any "delete" editor on the AfD, as you can see, the sole exception being LaMona, who was actually, verifiably false in all the claims I stated.  Please understand that this is really starting to become a 'hall of mirrors' here, the statements were false and provably so, and then that editor (not only doesn't respond) but disappears from the discussion, but stating those facts are somehow bad form?    Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   09:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also BMK is completely wrong, and condoning BMKs actions sets a bad example Re:"BMK is unnecessarily blunt and could do with reining in the language, but he's correct about your replies to editors on that AfD. For example, where an editor (quite correctly, as far as I can see) describes many of the sources as directories, non-secondary etc., you reply to all her comments with "False".  They aren't false."


 * From the talk page: #27 doesn't mention it at all." False:After the meeting was called to order, Stead asked for certification that a quorum existed, only to be told that the proxy service that was counting the votes was “still working on it.” That led to an adjournment that lasted about 30 minutes, as Blockbuster officials huddled with proxy service Corporate Election Services to figure out whether the meeting could continue. Under SEC rules, 50% of the eligible votes must be represented, either in person or by proxy, to have a quorum., and the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as with a book on corporate finance is 'spam' (or "I'm not finding third-party sources of substance." "The references are loaded with non-substantive links." False "#'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries." as stated on the AfD? The problem here is editors have backed themselves into a corner on something that is false, there is nothing about that article that rises anywhere near AfD status.   Now I think you can understand why on the 13th day I was very seriously asking for a very serious reply if these 'delete' editors read or knew what they were talking about, those are more than fair questions.  My only alternative was to start quoting all the citations all over the place, but that would have been distruptive, also by my count this hasn't been 7 days, until BMKs disruptive edits to my reasonable and necessary questions attempts were being made to understand editors concerns.  So I am requested you restore this, in fact I am requesting you restore the article and discuss concerns on the article's talk page since most of these editors statements were answered over a week ago on the articles talk page.  Thank you for being reasonable on this concern.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   10:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, after reviewing I can better understand your stance, I think if this was 7 days ago I would have been a bit more direct/a bit less challenging. My points above stand however, I was hoping for meaningful dialouge, give&take with editors who were replying to my queries of their statements and responding to their concerns, never happened over 7 days(really 11 days), that is why the 'hit and run' 'disappear for a week' 'one liners' concern was repeated by me, why I regret upping the challenging language as the days wore on.  All that said, BMK's edits and your condoning them we all know spilled fuel on what was a manageable heated wiki discussion, BMK violated WP:CIVIL, and AfD policies.  Its stark, your & BMK's concerns were with few exceptions civil/reasonable off AfD minutes later?  I wasn't the most welcoming editor but all of us deal with that everyday on wikipedia & AfD advises that editors will be a bit rough in an AfD, why not simply engage my questions/concerns on the page instead of elsewhere minutes later?  I value your time/expertise, not looking to drag this out into other talk pages and more editors.  I can understand your position on consensus and reading 7 days of my escalating but still civil statements, however AfD is not bound by only consensus but by facts, and no facts were presented that supported delete.  Not looking to make editors feel bad by pointing out false statements, but that's exactly what they were, it was my hope to elicit replies from each of them.  I'll commit to working on being more available to editors, welcoming/less judgmental/esoteric but I would appreciate a true GF discussion (on the articles talk page would be appropriate but I understand your reservation to go that far).  If BMK is up to it/civil, I would want to understand what exactly he took issue with, I read his posts but, well anyway, over 7 days we only had a discussion for 1 hour really.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   03:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi
As soon as the protection level was changed on Farshad Fotouhi the sockfarm was activated again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farshad_Fotouhi&diff=prev&oldid=657794030 Since you already know the history of this page, can you please take a look? Thank you. Dr wiki editor (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi Black Kite, as I talked about in my messages here, half of this issue is with BMKs activity, I would appreciate my AN/I being re-opened and having someone other than BMK participate in it prior to closure, my AN/I is not the one you merged under BMK's AN/I about complaints that did not exist on the AfD (except Fortuna's uncivil response to the caught/linked contradiction 5 days prior to you & BMKs involvement which I immediately addressed in a WP:CIVIL manner), an AN/I that I was never notified or warned about or even allowed the opportunity to resolve on my talk page as is required by AN/I's, my AN/I is the one where there were unresolved complaints on the AfD (my complaints of BMK) & there was attempt to resolve on a user talk page and a warning given on that user talk page. The merging was as bad as the closing prior to any 3rd party involvement. Thank you in advance for your leadership in this area.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Stepa
Hi, since once you have banned User:Stepa, I'd like to notify you that User:Sobek121 and user:Copka Michałowska are his sock puppets, and their old and recent contribution here include vulgarisms in my and User:PG's pages (another admin in pl:wiki who recently blocked one of Stepa's sock puppets). Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: Sobek121 is not connected to Stepa. Anyway, this account is banned in pl:wiki as created for vandalisms. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May I ask...?
I am unsure what I wrote that you chose to revert my comment on ANI. Have I broken some rule?  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Was reverting the previous edit and didn't notice you'd edited as well - sorry! Fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I want to stay out of trouble, and if I make a misstep, I just want to know what not to do in future  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Doorknob747
Could you take a look at this -- did this user create User:Door's ghost and edit to the user page while he was blocked? Some of my time stamps are in local time and some are in UTC, so I'm a bit confused about the timeline, which is why I'm asking. BMK (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the editor knows they are in the wrong here but really a heads up needs to be given here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The thread on the talk page is here. As I mentioned there, it could be a joe job. BMK (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per this edit: another Dodo sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Coburn
Sorry for any bad feelings about our disagreement over the sources there. When I saw the press coverage I wanted to check there was no whitewashing nor any undue weight or coatracking of the story, mindful of the other recent case regarding a British political figure, Grant Shapps, which I am sure you have followed. It may seem ironic (I hope not as I respect your intelligence and general caution about BLP matters) that I restored and added negative material to a sensitive BLP given my highly conservative record regarding BLP and BLP sourcing. I think on this occasion though, that as the sources are good, a restrained mention of the story is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with you here, or more generally in article talk, but I feel it is important that we strike a balance between allowing ourselves to be used to promote hit-pieces against political candidates, and allowing said candidates (or their representatives) to sanitise their Wikipedia articles. I wonder what User:Newyorkbrad would say? Very best regards, --John (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And I've also invited review of my actions at AN/I in case anyone thinks I have acted improperly. Obviously I don't think I have but I thought it only fair to have scrutiny. --John (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have either. Thanks for the note. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)