User talk:Black Kite/Archive 77

Arbitration case opened
You 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/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  04:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

2601:143:4200:E070:0:0:0:0/64
Hello, Black Kite! Continuation of this story. Could you set the semi-protection on the page "Crimean Tatars"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from oscillococcinum
I am blocked for wanting to remove soapboxing? Jfbongarçon (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you're blocked for twice removing sourced facts from the article and then calling the user who correctly reverted you "fascistic".  You are not (currently) blocked from any other page except Oscillococcinum but I would strongly suggest not doing the same thing elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

High BK
Could I ask a favour, never having had an article pulled as non-notable, that I was working on? The Hayley McLaughlin article—can you direct me to where I might find the last version of it, before it was deleted? I had put in a great deal of work, repairing citations, and if she does indeed become recognizably notable in future, I would rather we not start from scratch. (For a start, there were at least a half dozen good citations there, and for such entertainment articles, I have no time to reproduce already performed research.). Respond here, given my IP status? Cheers, thanks. [The former Prof.] 2601:246:C700:19D:B160:B273:E4A3:8B0F (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I have been watching the Patrick F. Philbin page, and have fixed vandalism a few times (as have others, there). Even though it would deny me access, perhaps lock it down for three days, until after this fellow is out of the limelight? Your call. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:B160:B273:E4A3:8B0F (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have moved the last version to Draft:Hayley McLaughlin where you can work on it and re-submit it via WP:AFC.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

unprotection request
@ Requests_for_page_protection-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else just beat me to it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. the benefits of a notice board.  D Big X ray ᗙ  18:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"Penis game" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Penis game. Since you had some involvement with the Penis game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI
Greetings, Black Kite. With all due respect, I believe you are having a knee jerk reaction to my ANI response and I am interested to know which of my points you found to be incorrect. Everything I have said was demonstrably true and I have the ability to prove it. If my accusations have seemed ludicrous, it's because Eagles247's behaviour (particularly for an administrator) has been ludicrous.

His accusations against me are also weak, as I have already partially outlined, and I am currently working on a section at Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 explaining what has been going on with the TTN situation.  Dark Knight  2149  13:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Net negative and indef ban
Hello. You have recently commented that I am a net negative for Wikipedia and that an indef ban for me is an appropriate sanction. Can you please explain 1) in what way I can improve my editing so that my contributions are a net positive and 2) what I have done in the past week in particular that led you to make such a conclusion? O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅  17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, quit being a "pot stirrer", like at 3RR/N all you do is drive by pot stirring, for one thing. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like an admin's comment on this. Is weighing in at ANI discussions as an uninvolved editor problematic? O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲  J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅  17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been to ANI (more than once), we've been to AE, we've tried multiple blocks, and every time you start editing again we end up with issues. There's only so many times we can do this before we assume that it is your editing that is the problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since spring last year (around 10 months ago), there've only been a couple of occasions on which I didn't follow BRD, almost all of which were cases such as reversions of clear misunderstanding and edits which had since gained consensus. Even the edits for which I recently got blocked did not in fact violate BRD save for one, which was a reversion of an obvious case of misunderstanding. Have you looked into the issue at hand or are you just basing this conclusion off the fact that I'm on ANI again? Speaking of which, I had been constructively editing for a whole year, and there weren't any problems with my editing (so it's not true that, every time that I'm editing, we end up with issues). This is in fact the first time that I had ended up in a place like ANI in an entire year, although you are free to take a look at the actual edits that led to my block and evaluate whether my editing was actually problematic. The blocks that I had received one year ago and earlier I had more than learnt from. I was a different editor then than I am now, which is reflected by the fact that all conflicts and content disputes which I have had in the past year were quickly resolved, without the need for edit-warring, which I would've reverted to, say, two years prior. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲  J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅  19:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Your nomination of Murder of Tessa Majors for deletion
I'm curious what prompted you to nominate this article for deletion three months after the page's creation, during which time the incident received (and continues to) substantial attention in reliable sources at a national level. Which of the deletion criteria did you specifically believe this article met? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS, which it still fails. It only exists because the victim was an young white female.  If that wasn't the case, we'd have articles on the other 561 murders that occurred in NY that year. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you ignored the relevant sources and nominated an article for deletion based on your own personal assessment of significance. Got it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to think, that's great. But based on this article, I could write an equally well-sourced article on every single murder that has occurred in my area of the UK in the last 25 years.  And still, practically none of them would be notable.  Like this one. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find the sources to meet GNG, then it is notable. Your repeated assertions that something "just isn't notable" because of your assessment has no basis in policy. I don't know what you're driving at here, but another editor called this a borderline-disruptive nomination and I agree. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is a guideline (that's what the second "G" stands for). WP:NOTNEWS is a policy.  Perhaps the community needs to consider why a guideline is being used to override a policy. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Cue the sock parade
I figured if they were rage quitting they had likely already created a new account (or two), and sure enough there's. They also have IP ranges up the wazoo available to them, so I imagine this will be a long slog of socking.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Oh well, we'll just have to pick them up as and when. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened
You 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/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving page to draft after AfD, removing template
Hi. I nominated BlaqKeyz for failing GNG. The author then proceeded to move the article to draft space and removed the nomination template. Since he’s autoconfirmed, it would be easy to move it back into main space after the nom is expired or rejected, so it looks like gaming the system to me. I have looked for some policy or guideline how to handle this, but came up empty. How do I handle this? Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. User: Praxidicae intervened. Sorry to bother you. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the recent discussion on TOI at RSN
At a recent discussion about the Times of India at WP:RSN, you said "I realise that Western sources do this as well, but most Western governments (I'm not including Donald Trump's Twitter feed here) don't tend to publish press releases that are easily provable as false (see this and the Wikipedia article on it)."

Please see this and this to get a better idea of what’s the reality. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 01:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Church
May I ask why Suja Juice got deleted? I understand that for Jeff Church and Tabjuice, there was clear consensus to delete. However, for Suja Juice there were 3 !votes for keep and 3 !votes for delete. For something as contentious as that, I feel like an explanation should be provided in the closing comment.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I read through it again and changed that one to no consensus. I think it does still need some improvement, though or it could be nominated again. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking
I was blocked as IPv6: 2001:18c0:61c:700:45de:7ea:f00b:3795, now CRS-20, 9 March 2020 for a week.

But I wasn't the culpable, but:

At the request, in my opinion, of Beatgr:

Revision CRS-20 at 23:29, 9 March 2020 Beatgr - Corrected citation errors by Vandal with Anonymous IP (German ISP)

I would like you to remove this bad note from my file. Is it possible? — CRS-20 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

ip range 37.160.0.0/14
Wow... Just after my request, another vandal came and disrupted the page so the page was protected and I can't edit it any more... Wonderful... In reply to your assertment, if you watch the last 50 edits from each range you'll see that the pages vandalised aren't "many dozens" but less than one dozen: Alisha Boe, Daniel Dae Kim, Jerry Springer, Vera de Bosset, Igor Stravinsky, Vittorio Rieti, Giacomo Rimini, Andrew Viterbi, Giorgio Cavaglieri, Bob Bergen, Muppet Babies (2018 TV series). All the other edits were positive and made not by that vandal. And the vandal could create an account from his blocked ranges and continue disrupting as a registered user. To me, this solution doesn't seem so smart, sincerely. Anyway, what's the most proper place for my request since now I'm prevented from editing the page where I started writing my previous request? MaicroMista (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a lot more than that. Just in the last 100 edits for each of those ranges I count over 35 biographies (including one of a fictional character!) where they have changed nationalities without any sources (. If the vandal does create an account from the blocked range, that's a lot easier to track, and they can simply be blocked and their edits rolled back.  WP:AN is only locked down for 12 hours. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, even switching from 50 to 100 edits, the pages I missed are just 4 more: Clyde Geronimi, Ingrid Bergman, Liu Yifei, Colonel Tom Parker. A fortnight, not many dozens. Perhaps I've missed some more again, but in my opinion the measure taken exceeds the aim and caused too much collateral damage.
 * MaicroMista (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Vito Corleone, John Cazale, Torben Meyer, Helmut Dantine, Stan Laurel, Peter Lorre, John Henreid, Isabella Rossellini, Greta Garbo, John De Lancie, Ben Wright, Ruby Keeler, Florence Gill, Andre Aciman... as I said, people can still create accounts, and the number of constructive edits from that range in the last month is not that many. Having said that, apart from one edit, the 37.162 and 37.163 ranges do seem to free of the problem, so I am going to unblock those. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well okay, this seems to be a good compromise, thank you for your understanding!
 * MaicroMista (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

bad call on Ben Fielding
All of the experienced editors who commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Fielding were in favour a delete or a merge. You sided with two involved editors and closed as no consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't "side" with anyone, thanks. If you can suggest another way of closing an AfD with 3 Keeps, 2 Deletes, 1 Merge and 1 Redirect I'd be happy to hear it. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

How to submit an article for deletion that has already been voted to delete?
Hi,

This afd on Ed Winters was voted delete from the consensus in 2018 which you commented on. I want to re-submit the article for deletion. The problem is when I try and do that there is already a discussion from the old afd there. Most the sources on the article are self-published or unreliable. I have written about this on the talk-page. Can you help with submitting the article for deletion again? Sorry to bother you with this.


 * I have just gone over that old afd, there was an issue there of someone using multiple account to promote Winters. I suspect this was another of their sock-puppets to re-create the article and this  on a single purpose account. Would the article qualify for speedy deletion? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion. We can see if there is any problem with sockpuppetry this time. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , this IP has been check-user blocked. It's a static IP so the person using that IP was likely using other accounts which have been blocked. Does this mean his vote is retracted? Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've struck the !vote. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That same IP has turned up on several mobile IPS to evade his block and has unstruck his vote. He says "The blocked IP is in use by several people in the same apartment block" . But I do not buy this. I have checked over his blocked IP which is a static one. This person has very experienced edits and he shows in-depth knowledge of some Wikipedia policies. The IP's first edits were on 10 March 2020. I don't know what account of his was blocked by the check-user but this is definitely not a new user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

recent death
Hi. Do you think Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma can be added in ITN/recent deaths? She is first royalty claimed by coronavirus. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because she died on March 26 and is therefore "stale"; the oldest entries there currently are from March 29. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocks
Hi - thanks for the link you provided at the ANI thread. To be honest, I'm not much the wiser - I guess I'm asking whether there's a useful go-to guide where I could learn about what an IP range actually is. I've looked at WP:RANGE and this page, but I think I need a more basic guide to understand it. I've got a vaguely functional brain, and a bit of time on my hands (!), so reading up on how IPs and IP ranges work might be a useful thing to do. Please feel free to say 'Sorry, there's a certain level of technical knowledge you need before considering anything like this' if that's what you feel - I'm looking to become more useful as an admin, not more dangerous as an idiot! Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, basically you need to know that CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) is a notation that shows ranges of IP addresses. It's in the form IP-address/bits, for example 192.168.0.0/24, and all you need to know here is that the larger the number after the slash, the fewer IP addresses it represents.  For example, 192.168.0.0/24 is the range from 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.0.255 (i.e. 256 addresses).  Every time you subtract one from the number after the slash, it doubles the number of IP addresses.
 * 192.168.0.0/24 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255 (256 addresses)
 * 192.168.0.0/23 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.1.255 (512 addresses)
 * 192.168.0.0/22 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.3.255 (1024 addresses)
 * 192.168.0.0/21 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.7.255 (2048 addresses)

and so on
 * 192.168.0.0/16 = 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (65536 addresses).


 * So for example if you've got a vandal that is operating from all over the 192.168.x.x range, you'd probably need that 192.168.0.0/16 rangeblock to cover them all. However, if they were operating between 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.7.x, you'd just need that /21.   On Wikipedia, for IPv4 addresses, we can't for technical reasons block anything bigger than a /16.  So for example, when I needed to block 37.160.0.0 to 37.161.255.255 the other day, I needed two separate blocks (37.160.0.0/16 and 37.161.0.0/16).


 * IPv6 is a bit more complex, but basically works in the same way. The complicating factor is that a single user generally doesn't edit from a single IPv6, they usually are allocated a /64 all to themselves (which is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 different addresses, but hey), which is why you regularly see blocks like the ones today.  The /64 block isn't really a rangeblock, it's targeting a single user.  This means that even though an IPv6 is something like 2001:1111:2222:3333:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd, you only need to block the /64 which is represented by the first 16 characters.  So the /64 block is 2001:1111:2222:3333::/64.  Reducing the number after the slash again doubles the number of addresses you're blocking.
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/64 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0000:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/63 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0001:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/62 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0003:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/61 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:0007:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
 * 2001:1111:2222:0000::/60 = 2001:1111:2222:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:1111:2222:000f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff


 * and so on. HTH, Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , wow - thanks, appreciate your taking the time to set that out. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)