User talk:Black Kite/Archive 50

Gun control arbitration case notice

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption related to Metro Mania Film Festival

Hello. The disruption was almost immediately continued by a newly created user account, Malusia22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created 19:51 UTC today, a few minutes before you blocked IP 112.207.152.250. So would you mind blocking that one too? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the article about Russell Hartz, TV dude

Black Kite, at the end of October you closed the following AFD as redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (4th nomination).

I think I can rework the biography to prove its notability beyond one event. Mind if I do so? Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I probably can do that too if you'd allow it. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - go for it. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard Ancient Egyptian

The DRNs were closed due to the pending ANI. So what am I supposed to do now that you closed the ANI? I cannot bring up the conduct issues in the DRN, only in the AN or ANI, I believe. But I am not sure. Clarification would be helpful. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now withdrawn all DRNs and wish to proceed with AI or ANI, please advise. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Guy Macon stated at the top of the ANI, you need to re-file the DRN (one case, not two). ANI is for issues requiring immediate administrator intervention, which isn't the case here. I'd make the suggestion that you try to avoid the immense length and unreadability of the postings at ANI and stick to the basic facts of the issue; I'm fairly familiar with those articles (I think you quoted me at one point) and even I couldn't grasp the point you were trying to make. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have email

I guess I need to reply at ArbCom, not sure given the only comment there at the moment by an Arb. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also have mail. Black Kite (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look

On December 24, you blocked this editor for 1 week for attempting to harass other editors (one in particular).

Back from his block, he has targeted the same user again with with this harassing edit summary, again without editing the article content. Previous instances of harassing this editor are linked here. Writegeist (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That edit

... suppressed! :) - Alison ^❤ 22:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you so much, Eddaido (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Nalle

Hi Black Kite,

You deleted Dave Nalle after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Given your past involvement, I thought it best to alert you to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Badmintonhist_again. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close of List of Other Backward Classes at AfD

I read this debate, but I really don't know how I could possibly merge List of Other Backward Classes into Other Backward Class. In my opinion, following the merge instructions in your close would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Or mostly not undue, more just way too much list. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for putting the Mobonix dispute to bed. Until it becomes notable, Wikipedia hasn't got anything to say about who owns the trademark... and then again, there's always the disambiguation page option. Marianian^(talk) 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Belarusian nobility

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Belarusian nobility. Because you took part in the discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the original discussion: [1]. Here is a link to the new one: [2]. Please feel free to leave a comment! :-) 79.180.31.23 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malusia22

Hi Black Kite, a month or so ago you blocked Malusia22 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Do you happen to recall what the master was in that case? This question came up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikipediaN6860o. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI case

Hello, Black Kite. Would you please see [this case at WP:ANI] as you are mentioned and you may wish to follow up on a previous action. In December 2012, you erased several edits made by the community banned User:Richard Daft on User talk:Johnlp after the owner of that page apparently refused to remove them when requested to do so. Daft has put some more posts on the same page, which he evidently sees as a "safe haven" for attacking members of WP:CRIC and Johnlp has again declined to remove them, though he accepts their "peremptory erasure" is inevitable. In my opinion, Johnlp must toe the line on WP:BMB as you outlined in December 2012 and I strongly recommend that his talk page is put under protection to keep Daft off it as an IP. Johnlp will no doubt argue that this will stop bona fide IP editors posting there but page history shows none except Daft have been there in three years. Without that page, Daft will have nowhere to go. What do you think? Thank you. HCCC14 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Thank you for drawing my attention to potential problems with Commons. If you'd like to elaborate on them, I'd be interested in reading your more detailed thoughts on the subject. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for cleaning up at Katia Elizarova. You caught me in between Wikipedia editing, kitchen cleaning, coffee making, breakfast prep, and airplane playing with various kids. You may have seen an IP's note on my talk page--I don't know if that's the Fairyspit sock, who's apparently into Russian models and British actors (Benedict Cumberbatch--is it a BLP violation to say that that's a silly name?). This is the first time that I hear of these people and I have no experience with the sock/master. Now, I'm scrambling--how do you like your eggs? Drmies (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plain scrambled with a touch of paprika :) Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet or smoked? Drmies (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry - picante smoked of course! Black Kite (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Elise

Do I need to open a deletion review overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Elise and request that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lily Elise be history-merged into Lily Elise?

Justification: This person has continued to work in the field since the AFD. Granted, it's not much but combined with the other work it's gone from "not quite there" to "borderline."

If you are fine with overturning the AFD, please do the history merge and notify me so I can clean up the AFC leftovers. If you think it needs to go to DRV, let me know and I'll send it there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone who has obviously become notable since an AfD is being discussed, then to be honest no-one is going to have an issue with simply recreating the article. However this one looks really borderline to me, so I suggest that DRV might be the better venue for this. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samsamcat

Im now just waiting for someone to come along and scream INVOLVED at you. :) Werieth (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, about his last five or six user interactions have been telling someone to fuck off or similar. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Kassam recreated

Hi Black Kite. Could you have a look at the Raheem Kassam which you deleted after dicussion but has reappeared. I've nominated it for deletion under CSD G4. Could you take action as you see fit. GiggsIsLegend (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf beat me to it. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WeeMee

Hey Black Kite. I'm not particular invested in this article, just spotted it in the WP:VG delete list, but I have gone back and restored the missing references that I mentioned in my keep vote, per your closing advice. The article now has 13 references. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down Under the Big Top

Thank you for the close. After discussion with the nominator on his talk page, I returned to the AFD discussion and was going to propose a redirect to Steve Taylor. Would my boldly redirecting create an issue? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, given the no consensus closure, which precludes nothing. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhmerovsky Forest

Hi!

Where can I challenge the result of the discussion? --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Tablewaiters

Hello black kite am wondering about the AFD on Tablewaiters, I noticed you relisted it. Can this issue be resolved by shaidar cuebiyar's statement that - "Tablewaiters qualifies at WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, and #6. Only one criterion is required for notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)" ? Am wondering as a newbie to the relisting and also to the whole article writing world. Thanks in advanceMrMoog (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-ipevadeblock

Template:Uw-ipevadeblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eye snore (pc) 01:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lokalkosmopolit

Thanks. Sorry I missed that one. I raised the issue of using the constitution as a source for the claim that it had been violated at WP:RSN#Is the Ukrainian Constitution a RS to say Parliament violated it? and I would have pointed that out. Ironically enough he's changed the text with a new source but an edit summary saying "rv WP:STALKer. added source." - but he didn't actually revert me. His new version is probably ok except I'd normally attribute a statement saying an action was unconstitutional, even if I were sure it was. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIN

I suggest you undo your premature closure of the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_stalked_and_harassed_by_a_user and recuse yourself from closing it. You opined last time from a very partisan viewpoint, so I'd like a neutral sysop to close the thread after having heard views by the community at large. For if my thread is unjustified, why such hurry to close it? For fear that your view might not prevail? PS. Boomerang is also relevant for sysops acting in partisan manner and having their sysop status removed after arbitration. Just sayin'.... Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The community at large" have already opined at your last call to ANI. I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time there and file a request for arbitration (although RFC/U should be your first call) if you're so sure that Dougweller is causing a problem. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: To your warning at my talk. If you want to make yourself a fool, then yeah, please go ahead and start a thread demanding a topic ban from 2014 Ukrainian revolution for me. Tough luck finding a single nonconforming edit from me to the topic though (anyway, you'll have lots to choose from, given all those hundreds of edits I've performed on the topic).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring with multiple other editors, repeatedly attempting to include unreliable sources, bringing spurious ANI requests, and issuing invalid discretionary sanctions warnings are all grounds for a topic ban; I suggest you desist from all four. A request for a topic ban based on those grounds would almost certainly succeed and so I suggest you consider this a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Total Siyapaa

Hey there, Black Kite. Regarding [3], I have an issue with use of the term "obvious sock." Possible sock, I agree, maybe even probable. But "obvious" seems a bit strong. Furthermore, why only revert the one edit by this IP, and not all the other edits made by it on the talk page? I have a problem with the accusation of vandalism regarding that IP, whose response to the accusation is being reverted. There seems to be a complete lack of good faith covering this talk page. Are we to assume that all IPs editing this page are socks of one man? Greedo 8 00:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew the history of it you would have a point, however you don't, so you don`t. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this since it started. So I do know the history, does that mean I do have a point? Greedo 8 01:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If in fact that is the case, why the fuck are you restoring obvious sock comments? Which are pointless really. Darkness Shines (talk)

1. Not obviously a sock, I said that before.
2. Why remove a non-disruptive comment? There are plenty of comments that are quite disruptive on that talk page, why not choose one of the hurtful ones? Greedo 8 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all IPs, simply the ones that are obviously socks of this particular editor. They're not difficult to spot, since this is not the brightest sockmaster in the world (indeed, they even admit their identity on occasion). So let's leave it at that, please; the semi-protection was to stop them editing there, and it really, really, didn't need an established editor going around restoring them. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you blocked an IP range he was using, you might want to see

WP:AN#Community ban proposal for Az-507. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheVirginiaHistorian

Can you please lend a hand, both myself and Masem have attempted to explain NFCC policy but the user is edit warring, forum shopping and not listening. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for the topical article

Concerning your intervention at the above (in response to a request to intervene in a discussion being led by another administrator), can you please give a constructive response to my request as to how I (too) might avail myself of a second opinion. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. WP:DRN is your first port of call for content disputes; regarding images you should see WT:NFC; if you believe there are more serious issues you may contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger advice needed?

Please would you take a look at this in light of your action here and your advice here? Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary

Can you please return the page Banc De Binary to its previous state (previous edit)? The decision to lock it was correct, but not on that "slanderous" version. Please see the article talk page. JordanTime (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at WP:ANI, if anyone can point out anything legally problematic, contentious and unsourced in this version, I will remove it. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope it would only need to be two out of those three (any two!) to be removed... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I phrased that badly, there should probably be an "or" after "problematic" there. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me by 20 minutes

I opened a 3RR ticket, went to add the user notice, went back and removed the ticket. Thanks for doing that! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

--Epipelagic (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me!

I'm happy that you unblocked me because I am an good, nice angel. Jak was worse than me. (=D) ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 19:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever

The user you blocked for intentional edit warring that you blocked, left a "LEAVE WIKIPEDIA NOW" message on my talk page. Is there a way to have an someone patrol or extend this users block, because I believe the issue will continue once his 24 hour block is up. JakIIDax (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why did you unblock him? I am not even on that SPI list. Here we go again. JakIIDax (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him because I'm concerned about your account and this, which I'm looking into now. "Here we go again" is an interesting comment for an account that's four days old, as well. I did warn him not to repeat that message on your talkpage, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a fight with this guy for the last hour. Why would I not say here we go again? The guy was removing my edits since the last time I was here going back on the history, and when I tried to fix it an hour ago, he decided to have a war. Clearly this will continue now because you decided to unblock him. Did you see the diffs that showed he was doing it all on purpose? JakIIDax (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were both edit-warring. I've told him to stop, and now I'm saying the same to you. I'll have no hesitation in blocking either of you if that carries on. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My editor review

You may not have noticed my request a couple of days ago for you to draw my editor review to a conclusion. I wrote: "You proposed closing the review on 3rd April. It is more than a week now since AfadsBad asked for more time so that she could point out more erroneous articles. She has not done this, and has provided no evidence at this time to back up her statement "And, no, it's not a few bad articles. It is every single article she has ever written." Nor has she or anyone else criticised the articles I put forward as being examples of my work. I voluntarily submitted my work for editor review as was suggested at AnI, where my complaint of harassment awaits resolution. Please could you draw this review to a close and publish your conclusions."

Things have now changed to the extent that AfadsBad has made some criticisms of the articles that I had named as being good, and I have responded on the review page. Editor Cyclopia has requested that the review be kept open and I am happy with that, but I would like you to make a finding on AfadBad's assertion that "And, no, it's not a few bad articles. It is every single article she has ever written." I don't believe AfadsBad has made a case to support that statement and I want your decision in the editor's review so that I can try to bring the AnI discussion to a close. By all means leave the review open if you think that appropriate, I don't know how these things work. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, yes I was leaving it to see if the ANI thread came to anything, but I agree it's probably time to go forward now. I'll try to type things up this evening (I'm in the UK, so it's midday here now). Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for closing the discussion about Ahtehsham100‎ at WP:ANI who wontinued to add hoax information. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yet another sock

Mr.BenHur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another duck sock of Astronautabhinavstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you have recently taken care of. Thank you!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've semi'd the two most affected pages for a month, as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Black Kite, thanks! But master, Astronautabhinavstar, he should be blocked for longer period now. Am I right? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control arbitration proposed decision

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]