User talk:Black Kite/Archive 74

Question about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article
Hello. You just rightfully locked the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article, but I was wondering if you could undo the latest edit. That edit altered language that was the product of a consensus here. To me it seems the non-consensus language should not be left in the article while the lock is up. HoldingAces (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't really - to do so would make me WP:INVOLVED. If it was a long lock I might look at it, but per The Wrong Version, this is an issue that arises every time an admin uses protection. Since it's only 24 hours, it's probably just best to make sure the consensus version is agreed on by the time the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Clever. HoldingAces (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The same issue arises every time an admin locks a controversial page; someone will tell you it's in the wrong version. Unless the last edit has actual major problems (a BLP or copyright violation) then the admin can't change the content, for the reason I gave above.  There's nothing "clever" about it at all. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see this being a frequent issue. I say clever because WP:INVOLVED states, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed in which they have been involved." You have not been involved in this dispute. The policy goes on to clarify this, stating, "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." Again, you "have" not been a party to this dispute. Further, the policy talks about "[o]ne important caveat," which is where an "administrator . . . has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role . . . is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that . . . topic area." Restoring the language that was a product of a nearly two-week long discussion on the talk page between a number of editors and administrators would simply be an administrative act. That's all I meant. HoldingAces (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no established consensus on the talk page, and you're ignoring well-founded objections based on foundational policy (notably, your "preferred version" omits any and all responses to the allegations, presenting them as unchallenged, which is factually false). If you wish to clearly establish one, I suggest starting a Request for Comment on the language in question, and I would be happy to assist in that task. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We did reach a consensus. I, Melanie, and Levich each posted a comment at the conclusion of the talk-page discussion asking for others to join in. No one did. We waited a day. And I put in the changes. You then saw the changes, didn't like them, and made your own alterations. You then posted in the talk page that you did not agree. You're now trying to claim that your post-discussion disagreement with the talk page is proof that there is no consensus. That is dishonest. ("Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.") I will not carry out this conversation here. It is not the place to do so. I am sorry Black Kite. HoldingAces (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (talk page stalker) Mostly here to reinforce what Black Kite said about The Wrong Version. But looking at the talk page, it's pretty obvious that the proposed language doesn't have consensus. (That's not to minimize the work that HoldingAces and others have done to try to achieve consensus, but your claims of consensus are clearly incorrect based on what I see on the talkpage). And, speaking as an admin applying WP:BLP, the people who object have a point. You can't simply mention a partisan allegation&mdash;especially one that appears to be viewed as pretty flimsy by independent reliable sources&mdash;without providing context or at least noting the article subject's response/denial. That's a clear-cut BLP violation, and one that I would expect to see addressed before any further edit-warring over the material. It also looks like everyone there could use a reminder about 1RR. MastCell Talk 17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MastCell, when interpreting a policy, I think we both can agree that relying on the relevant policy involved is better than citing satire to justify inaction. Nevertheless, I am a pragmatist and will argue the point no further.


 * With respect to consensus, I think citation to the consensus policy and an analogy will help advance my point. WP:CONACHIEVE states that the ideal consensus "arrives with the absence of objections". Following the nearly two-week long discussion on the talk page, a number of editors announced their agreement on the proposed language and invited other interested editors to comment. After waiting a day there were no objections. How is that not a consensus? Any post currently on the talk page that disagrees with the consensus language came after a day passed and no objections were raised. Here is the analogy, assume on an article's talk page, a group of interested editors reached a consensus on proposed sentence. Those editors then asked for others' comments or objections. After a day has passed no one raised any further questions or objected. So those editors put the consensus-based language into the article. Now assume further that I, having no involvement in the editors long discussion to reach consensus, swoop in and alter the language. I then hastily post my disagreement in the talk page. Can I then claim there was no consensus? Absolutely I cannot. Because if that was the case, I can go to any article that contains language reached by consensus, change it, post a comment in the talk page about my disagreement with original consensus, claim that there was never a consensus, and start the whole process over again while my edit remains on the WP article. Such an action would directly conflict with WP's actual policy of requiring an editor who disagrees with a pre-established consensus to change that consensus before making an alteration.


 * With respect to the merits of this particular issue involving the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article, I would encourage you to voice your opinion on her article's talk page where it belongs. HoldingAces (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies to Black Kite for taking up more space here. To be clear, though, I'm not voicing an opinion on a content dispute at that page, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I'm providing an assessment of consensus, and of whether material complies with our WP:BLP policy, both of which are administrative functions. I'm fine with any material which has consensus, and which complies with WP:BLP, as I don't follow or edit that article. (You, on the other hand, seem almost singularly focused on it, I see.) MastCell Talk 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem with a discussion taking place here, though obviously it might be more useful at the article talk :) Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite! MastCell, sorry, but I don't follow. What do you mean I "seem singularly focused on it"? What is "it"? Regardless, the scope of WP:BLP and its requirements are being discussed at the talk page. If you have concerns that some language may make into the article that does not comply with WP:BLP, don't you think that—as an admin—you should try to ensure that WP policies are not violated? And, to be clear, I am being sincere. We need more people weighing on this. HoldingAces (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt your sincerity. I agree that the next step in ensuring compliance with BLP etc. would be to post at the AOC talkpage, and am debating whether I have the bandwidth to follow through on that (as I don't want to just drop in with a drive-by comment). By "singularly focused", I meant that the substantive edits you've made with this account seem almost entirely focused on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; see single-purpose account. MastCell Talk 19:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I would be happy to see you there. And yes, unfortunately that is true. That article has been my focus. I defended one edit made by another user a few weeks ago, and I have been defending it ever since. I planned on moving on to something else after we wrapped it up with consensus, but as you can likely tell, I will probably be sticking to that article for at least another few days. HoldingAces (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

When I caulk my bathtub I will think of you
Because now I have time to do that job instead of taking those two articles to AFD. Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring report conclusion
Hello. You have recently concluded Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: No violation)|this report]] as 'No violation'. However, your summary comment seems to imply that you have misunderstood the gist of the report. Quoting a sentence in your comment, "Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false. At least four other editors apart from Nick Thorne (User:Roxy the dog, User:Rhododendrites, User:Doug Weller and User:Dave souza) have objected to all or some of your various changes". However, if you look carefully at the discussion, you will find that the listed users have only objected to some of my other proposals, which are unrelated to the change I was addressing in the report, and actually focus on adding an extra clause, rather than modifying any of the original content. The change addressed in this report concerned modifying the clause 'which rejects', and was only discussed by three editors - me, 1990'sguy, and Nunh-huh. The following comment by Dave souza in that discussion addressed only my original proposal, not the proposal addressed in this report. If it is still possible, please reconsider your conclusion. O l J a 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * How many versions of what you changed do you want? We can see the page history for ourselves.  I'm sorry, Black Kite but this person keeps changing their story every time they repeat it. - Nick Thorne talk  14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

2019
Hi, I don't want to take up to much of your time. I want to say you did prove some good points on what Deb said about Jeremy Hardy. And I have a better idea, from own nobody is allowed to add any names to 2019 unless they can find articles from countries. That's what I do all the time before I add any names. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you agree, feel free to send me a message on my talk page and we can discuss it. But keep in mind I may not respond right away, and can't spend 24 hours a day on Wikipedia. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for you at Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 7
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Gravedancing by 86.137.242.21
It appears a more energetic response was required that I'd guessed - I assumed simply reverting and leaving a note would have been sufficient, but from the fallout, it clearly wasn't. What's the appropriate action for me to take if I spot something like this again? WP:ANV doesn't quite seem to fit. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss ) 21:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the behaviour continues like it did here, then WP:ANI is probably your best bet. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you got a good reason...
I had to hide some of the images because there wasn't enough for them at the moment due to editing conflicts with all the british names and a lot of other names as well. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I only put the image because there was space available. if you want to hide it and replace it with someone else than that's fine. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 12 is status quo
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/brexit-uk-faces-reckoning-with-no-deal-deadline-just-days-away.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B01A:191F:C453:4015:1BFA:C31D (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're not up to date. . Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That missing article
Oh, go ahead and write it up. I'm trying hard to do things other than Wikipedia today. But I want to make sure you've seen this source. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will do if I get the chance, regardless of our friend elsewhere :) Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone else made a very bare start, so there went a few hours of time I should have spent on my tax forms. And it is now at AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC) ... and now looking likely to be kept. I've fixed the year of the film and would like to ask you to check the matters raised at the unnameable site as being non-BLP-compliant; the sources contain that and more, mostly from the police spokesman, starting with the link I gave you above. I stayed out of the family's characterisation of the police investigation and used "reportedly" more than an encyclopedia usually would. But if I've been unfair, please wield the rev-delete tool. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Can
you kindly restore Kunal Kamra to my user-space? Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for considering the report again me.

84percent (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC) 

Notre Dame fire
Sorry to have reverted your edit, but I think it's better to discuss it on the talk page and gain consensus before removing. I don't wish to engage in an edit war. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP hopper at it again
Hi Black Kite. You blocked IP 175.137.72.188 for 1 month for persistent disruptive editing. He's at it again, using another IP (175.136.101.184). Same geolocation, target articles, same POV, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This one is probably operated by the same person as well. Clearly, whoever operates these IPs, is on a single purpose mission and trying to put wool over everyone's eyes. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Article deletion for Tartary
You removed my request to delete the page and advised to go via AfD. Sorry but I tried to follow the instructions in the AfD page and it is very convoluted. Are you able to advise in a nut shell what I need to do please? Thegman81 (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Hi Black Kite, thank you for you response and assistance in this matter. I had a read through WP:BEFORE page. My self and others have had a crack at improving the Tartary article by adding citations/references to make it more solid. They keep getting removed by Wikipedia administrators. To this date, the article simply has no citation/references. I don't believe there are sufficient sources to validate this article being posted on wikipedia. There was also sufficient time by which there was a 'wiki header' alerting: 'This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)'. I believe it is time that the article is deleted/removed until someone can provide creditable sources for the existence of Tartary and what it was exactly.Thegman81 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have self-reverted
Following your directives, I have self-reverted.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniella van Graas
I didn't want to post at the ANI discussion after you closed it, but I did want to respond to your closing comment. The problem is that there aren't any decent sources. All the sources currently used are ones the editors arguing to keep the article have brought in over the past few hours; it started with just IMDb and FashionModelDirectory.com. I'm not sure why the AfD has gone so wrong, but all the sources are blogs, crowdsourced, bare mentions, etc., and a single source that could maybe be considered as showing notability, an episode of a Dutch TV show, the article subject was one of three profiled as the "most beautiful girls in (their high school) class." I feel like Alice in Wonderland. It's just...befuddling. --valereee (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party
My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem :) Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)