User talk:Black Kite/Archive 36

PhanuelB

A while ago PhanuelB sent me an email in which you were mentioned. If you are interested you can see both the text of the email and my response to it at User talk:PhanuelB#Response to email request for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

2010-11 Valencia CF season

Please do not damage the hard and extensive work of others only to applicate strictly stupid rules. These non-free images are used to have information as the official tv broadcasters, and is very well known that these tv channels cannot hungry for its logo inclusion on these articles. What's your objective in Wikipedia? Tocar los cojones a la gente? Do you help to collaborate or do you help to tired massive users to collaborate constructively in Wikipedia? Please make reflexions about your importance in Wikipedia, and your simpathy to other users, about destruct the collaborations. I realise that I have a bad English, it don't matter to me. It's very sad that there are administrators that the only objective is to abandon Wikipedia to massive users. Bye bye

What's your concept for uncivic?? you are one of the worst collaborators of wikipedia, you can block any user that you can, so, you considers yourself the owner of Wikipedia. I repeat that thanks to you, there are a lot of users that abandon to collaborate on Wikipedia. And another thing: you are on of the best motherfuckers I met. If you are happy blocking me, make it. It's the only thing that makes you realized in your poor life. Come one, block all persons that not respect your limitations and appropiate the Wikipedia project to yourself!!! yeah!! so stupid you are!!!

Sir, can you please unlock this article, it needs to be updated...matches are being played as we speak. I will not use the images that you claim are not permitted by copyrights. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.87.113 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Siles José-Maria

You recently salted a long string of these, but another one has been recreated, this time with the last name first, at Siles José-Maria. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RockSound blocked as sock

Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja: I've added some IP's previously used by Zlykinskyja and their socks to the evidense page. Wonder if a check for (obvious?) sleeper accounts can be made. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, nice seeing you coming out of hybernation ;) . Cheers TMCk (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Won't work, I think - these accounts are generally meatpuppets and/or are aware of how to evade Checkuser, from previous experience. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• That might be true although I would wonder if Z knows how to unless she is being coached.
  (Half) off topic, fishing should be allowed in extreme cases like we have with the MoMK article. Wishful thinking. Cheers and don't disappear again for too long, TMCk (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have reviewed your block. If you desire, I will take "ownership" of the sanction in case you are concerned that the credibility of same may be gamed by claims of partisanship. If so, let me know on my talkpage (and if not, you need not respond at all). Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be fine - thanks - but more for the fact that I'm not going to be as manically active as I used to be rather than any claims of partisanship. I've never edited the article except to add editprotected requests, add sources, or remove unsourced statements per the talkpage, and I certainly really couldn't care less about the subject. The problem is that the collection of editors - whether it's one sockmaster or 30 meatpuppets - don't seem to comprehend the fact that they shouldn't be using the page for advocacy purposes. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Could you confirm that that is a "yes"? I am not going to be involved in this issue at all, and want to keep it that way - but am prepared to take on the block to ensure that some "hints" relating to your position remain groundless. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a "yes" :) Black Kite (t) (c) 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Nice to see you back. I think you have a good head on your shoulders, so don't let the project get under your skin (to mix metaphors). Be well. — Becksguy (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, from Jack. 222.124.91.230 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - shit! the things you find out when you look at someone's contribs when you realise they've been gone awhile. My sympathies go out and I hope things are looking better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And me. Welcome back! SuperMarioMan 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all; Cas, yes things are better now, though I won't pretend everything is wonderful; but I do have a bit of time to type stuff on t'Interweb. I won't be around as much as before, for obvious reasons, but you never know when I might appear ;) Black Kite (t) (c) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Glad to see you back, and VERY glad things are getting better. Sorry to hear that you've had such a rough go of it BK, all my best wishes. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well well, I guess I never do know when you might appear. +1 to the welcome back and I'm glad things have improved in real life. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kollyfan

Are you not at all concerned about his repeatedly going against consensus on a GA article, only about the personal attacks? BollyJeff || talk 23:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked him indefinitely for the personal attacks, the other issues can be dealt with by shorter blocks and/or topic bans. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I have a feeling we will be contacting you again. BollyJeff || talk 23:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. You mentioned you would not be opposed to the editor being unblocked if he promised not to use personal attacks. In their unblock rationale, they had said "I hereby promise ... not attack other editors". Does that fulfill your cavet?--v/r - TP 00:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Note for your records

• Unblocked the editor, per your go-ahead. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: I have been mistakenly blocked

Thank you for clearing this block, Black Kite. It was as confusing as it was frustrating, but I'll assume you mouse slipped. Happens. -Iketsi (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of organization

I thought this was a poor close, frankly; you should not be amazed if it turns up at Deletion Review. In the meantime, can you make the content available so some can be used at membership organization and maybe support group? Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest it would probably have ended up at DRV whichever way it was closed, bar of course No Consensus, which would probably mean it would've ended up at AFD again. Can't win sometimes. Have userfied to User:Johnbod/Friends of organization. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit it didn't help that some were trying to re-add synthetic elements as fast as they were removed, encouraged by out & out deleters. But OR didn't stand up imo. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the OR issue is that variant groups were being taken as a whole purely because of their name - this wasn't really rebutted, and if so is definitely OR. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think a museum gift shop is a totally different concept from a zoo gift shop, a cathedral gift shop or a national park gift shop, then yes it would be! Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So should we have an article on the links between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Campaign for Real Ale, and the Campaign for "santorum" neologism? :-) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well of course we do, at Advocacy group, though I'm not sure the 3rd one quite qualifies. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No. But rather than getting sidetracked: I attempted to rebut the OR by writing a short consensus version removing any possible OR or synthesis. Did you look at the short, policy-compliant version before closing this? Trilliumz (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this version? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sar Pass Trek

Heya Black Kite, you closed this AfD as keep, and I'd like to know why exactly you thought consensus went that way. Going purely by numbers, it was 2-2, so I don't think that applies, and I don't believe the keep voters answered any of the concerns of Kerαunoςcopia and I. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the note - I meant to close this as No Consensus, and clearly misclicked. I'll fix that now - of course, the effective outcome is that the article continues to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, and I thought that that might be what you meant to do - I just seriously doubted that there was consensus to keep. Oh well, I'll clean it up and see if there's really anything worth salvaging. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Claritas/Anthem of Joy

Hi Black Kite. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Claritas/Anthem of Joy. Would you sign your closure? Also, is the user banned per the discussion? Cunard (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In a discussion with Courcelles, he noted that there was some ambiguity with your close of the discussion. I've asked him to explain what other paperwork must be done when someone is banned. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, would you take a look at User talk:Courcelles#cWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Claritas/Anthem of Joy? Cunard (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on Courcelles' talk page. Cunard (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Your edit summary here was insulting and inaccurate. I hatted off topic (i.e., not about a Knox article) sniping, including two comments about me. I did not just hat comments I don't like. This is standard procedure and is fine when other editors do this.LedRush (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they use common sense.TMCk (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, in the interest of ensuring that the talk page doesn't become "poisoned", may I ask why you didn't consider it necessary to hat or otherwise refactor this comment, which would certainly seem to be "off-topic sniping"? SuperMarioMan 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, his hatting did include that comment as well, but see my comment below. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know you [SMM] love to excuse every bad act from your group by unfairly comparing it to a supposed bad act by me (even though that is an extremely fallacious argument), but I did hat my comment because it wasn't on topic. [1]LedRush (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, on review of that comment, I posted an incorrect link ... how, erm, embarrassing. I meant to refer to the comment that is directly beneath LedRush's in that particular diff, which was ultimately not hatted, but got the diffs all wrong ... Furthermore, on reflection, that comment was probably still on-topic anyway, so I'm doubly incorrect. Sorry ... consider this a humiliating retraction ... SuperMarioMan 00:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SMM. There is nothing humiliating about a retraction or apology. Or perhaps I tell myself that as I issue many myself. Regardless, your striking and your comment are appreciated.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my edit summary was completely accurate. You didn't hat Bruce Fisher's attack on other editors, but you removed both mine and John's comments in reply to him, making it look as though we had not replied to his points at all. You don't get to do that, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I didn't only remove comments I don't like. I removed off topic ones, including my own. I kept Bruce's because it was mostly on topic, though his use of the term foolish was uncivil and unnecessary.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no - my comment was on-topic (telling Bruce to write a userspace draft rather than complaining about the fact the article didn't exist). There's no problem hatting complete long drawn out off-topic threads, but removing bits of a conversation will inevitably irritate people. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that we've all established that I didn't just remove comments I didn't like and that Black Kite used his edit summary inaccurately and in an insulting manner, now we get down to the minute details. Yes, your comments had some on-topic content mixed in with your insults and condescending attacks. However, because the tone was so bad, and, like you said, it's best to hat "complete" off topic discussions, I decided that yours was best hatted with the other, completely off-topic ones. Also note that in the very same thread someone hatted merely three off-topic entries.

Realistically, what's going on here is another manifestation of what's wrong with the article. The organization hates anyone having any input in the article except for themselves, and rushes in to ensure that they maintain control and a united front, even when all evidence points to them being wrong.LedRush (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"We've established that I used my edit summary innacurately and in an insulting manner". "We" have, have "we"? - no "we" haven't. You might have done in your own mind, but that's it. Sheesh, no wonder you get into talk page spats with everyone if that ridiculous attitude is typical of your editing. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, once we established that I had hatted two of my own comments, including a lengthy one with some of my earnest opinions in it, I assumed that you recognized that I didn't "hat just the comments that you don't agree with", as you claimed.LedRush (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppeting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agumon (Data Squad)

I've accused Jfgslo of using IP sockpuppets to stack AFD votes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jfgslo. One of the AFDs that I think was affected by this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agumon (Data Squad), which you recently closed. It isn't quite clear to me if the sockpuppet investigation has concluded . . . the people who responded seemed to think the evidence was obvious, but no one has taken any action against Jfgslo, so I don't know if they are still considering (to be honest, I'm not really sure how the sockpuppet investigation process works, as this is my first time starting one). Regardless, I thought you should know about this, since I think if any sockpuppeting occured it probably affected your close of that AFD. Calathan (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreated Steven Crowder

I have recreated the Steven Crowder page, adding multiple secondary reference sources from multiple viewpoints. 5minutes (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Steven Crowder

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steven Crowder. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 5minutes (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

I've been talking with User:Gregmm and believe he should be unblocked. I wanted to give you the first crack at it. If you check his edit history, he had only one edit, and it was not problematic. You blocked him with a reason of "block evasion" but there appears to be no evidence of that, and in conversation with him, it seems extremely unlikely to be true. In my view, your original block was in error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the problem was that his edit restored material previously added by blocked editors, but if you have talked to him and believe this was not the case, I'm happy to unblock. It is unfortunate if a genuine account got caught in the barrage of problematic editing by various SPAs, socks and meatpuppets that were plaguing the article at the time. However, despite a few recent socks of blocked editors, the page has become less toxic in the last few months since the main disruptive editors were blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You get indeffed for once wanting to add the same material that a blocked editor at one time wanted to add? That seems like a strange policy. Where is it written?LedRush (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If there is good reason to believe you are a blocked editor under a different name, yes (WP:SOCK). Sometimes we get it wrong, though. You have to remember that at the time the article was completely overrun with disruptive editors; indeed it is only recently that the situation has calmed down a little. At least two editors have been blocked under more than one user ID. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Got it. He was a sock.LedRush (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find the sock investigation...can you point me to it?LedRush (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        • It was conducted off-wiki; this happens regularly for various reasons. Anyway, Gregmm is unblocked now. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        • LedRush - it isn't that he was a sock. It was that he was thought, at the time, to be a sock. There's actually no evidence that he ever was anything other than an innocent user caught in the crossfire. Mistakes happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dean Corll

Good evening, Black Kite. I note the tag you have placed upon the above article and, having looked at the guidelines within the tag upon the article, I can see there is indeed an excessive (I assume excessive is the reason as opposed to inappropriate?) usage of imagery and, perhaps, quotations within the article in question and of course this needs to rectified.

I and others have made several additions and edits to this article and if you would be kind enough to clarify precisely the sources/quantity of images or text in question which needs to be modified or removed in order that the tag be removed I will be happy to rectify the article within the next 24 hours or so.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Kindest regards --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a total of 10 images and quote boxes from this article for reasons I have explained on the discussion page, Black Kite. Do you feel the tag above the article can mow be removed?

Kindest regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The accusations are flying

I doubt this will result in anything good, but here goes nothing.

It seems like you feel that I am unjustly accusing you of bias. What I have said, and what I believe to be true, is that a group of Admin and editors routinely blocked/silenced editors who could be classified as "pro-knox" (or the "teach the controversy" people). I can't show you diffs of this proof, because there are no diffs of blocks against people who didn't come from this camp. I believe that many of the blocks were unjustified (Phanuel, Wikid77, TJHolme, Gregmm, etc.) Blocks/warning sometimes happened for reasons like accusing others as belonging to a group of advocates, exactly as people have accused them of being! This also happened despite the shielding of other editors who engaged in more disruptive behavior and personal attacks most who got blocked (hypocrite, for example). Is there actual malice or an actual intent to skew the article? I don't know. But the effects were clear, and the article is far better now than when the purges were happening.

It also seems like you are particularly concerned with me saying that certain Admin/editors have a POV. If you don't, I am sorry. To me, though, it seems that many do, including those responsible for many of the admin actions (both editors and admin). This group seems to come down on the same side of an issue each time. Certain editors don't get reprimanded at all for blatantly breaking WP policy, and others do. Other editors and Admin consistently come down on the side of not including any information about the controversy, regardless of sourcing, coverage or wikipedia policy.

Now, additionally, I find that this group of editors can be uncivil and engage in personal attacks against editors with whom they disagree. When talking about you specifically, you said that I once just "hat[ted] just the comments that you [didn't] agree with". I found this to be insulting and a personal attack. I proved that I also hatted comments I did agree with, including a lengthy one that I wrote, but you couldn't bring yourself to admit this.

You accused me of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with me is pro-guilt. [2]. That is demonstrably not true. As I explained on that AN/I thread, I have worked collaboratively with many editors on both sides of the issue to make the article. For example, Errant and I disagree on many, many things (is the article POV, are there current BLP issues, should there be a Knox article) but I have never accused him of being pro-guilt. I don't even like that term, and usually use it in quotes because it is a silly term, but is the most even way to discuss the editors who are "pro-innocence".

In that same post, you ask me to defend a position I've never made, and then ask me to put up or shut up. These are not civil or constructive comments.

If you are insulted or offended by my view of the situation, I am truly sorry. But this is an ongoing issue, and I believe that the uneven administration of WP policy and the incivility and bity-ness towards newcomers greatly exacerbates the problem.LedRush (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thankyou for that, and I'm sorry if my comments appeared too harsh, but as you can imagine it is intensely frustrating to be continuously on the end of the same allegations. The single point that keeps getting missed is that none of those editors were blocked for their views - they were blocked for persistent disruption, using Wikipedia as an advocacy site, incivility, battlegrounding, BLP violations, as well as the sockpuppetry etc.
• Apart from the latter, many of them were not indeffed straight off, but given many chances to simply stop what they were doing wrong, and they did not do so. If that looks like blocking people from only one POV, then it's simply because it was only people from that side that were doing those things, and there's nothing I or any of the other admins can do about that. If you can point out where editors from the "other site" have demonstrated such persistent problems, I would of course be happy to look at that as well.
• The perceived "bitiness" towards newcomers is problematic, but on the other hand when you've got five brand new accounts that all show up at the same time and start edit-warring on the article, or yelling on the talkpage how terrible Wikipedia is because it won't change the article to what they want it to say RIGHT NOW, and you just know they've been sent there from an off-wiki site, it's a little difficult to assume good faith. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit: and as I speak, perfect example on ANI - User:Tjholme pops up - for the first time in 3 months or so, wonder how he knew about the conversation - with "Why so much effort being put into blocking his/her voice ? So many admins working to keep his opinion out makes me think he must have something very important to say..." and putting scare quotes round "neutral admins".... Black Kite (t) (c) 06:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for continuing this discussion in a constructive and respectful manner. I recognize that you believe that all the users were blocked for disruption, NPA, Battle and BLP. My point is that, to me, many of the warnings and blocks seemed overly harsh, and that persistent NPA, BLP, and Battle violations by editors and Admin on the "other" side of the issue seem to have been ignored. Couple that with the fact that a few editors follow not specific articles, but all the contributions of some of the other people, needling them with bity comments and insults in the hopes of pushing them to break WP policy, it becomes clear to me that there is a widespread problem.
    • What this situation does is it fosters an atmosphere of unfairness and bitterness, poisoning the talk page. Established editors either know what lines they can't cross, or know editors and Admin who will back them up if called out on it. The newer editors don't, and they, in turn, are the only ones who get punished again. I believe it is a vicious cycle that must be stopped on the side of the established editors. That means, they should not harass newer editors based on their beliefs (don't start sock investigations after someone's first edit, don't follow every edit from someone who has made a "pro-innocence" argument, don't assume bad faith, don't personally accuse everyone who makes an edit that can be seen as "pro-innocence" as belonging to a cabal of off-wiki advocates, don't make personal attacks and try and be civil to the new guys). Of course, if the new editors prove to be disruptive, there will be plently of time to deal with those issues, as we've done many times.
    • I know that it can be frustrating dealing with newer editors not well versed in WP policy. And it is also frustrating when confronted by editors who do act as you say they do (demand changes be made, ignore helpful advice, ignore WP policy). But we can't let that taint the application of WP policy or allow us to relax rules of civility against newer editors.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking only of the blocks I made, the Wikid77 and PhanuelB blocks have been reviewed at ANI, multiple times, and there was never a beginning of a consensus that these were in error. John's final block of PhanuelB (made more than a half year before he actually started taking an interest in the article) was also commented upon - and for that matter, multiple admins have since reviewed the matter and decided to let the block stand. Black Kite's only questionable block has been Gregmm, and he has corrected it. You are entitled to your views, but when you hint at administrative misconduct, as you did in that ANI (and I note that you still haven't clarified, redacted or substantiated your claims), you shouldn't be surprised when you get called on it.
• So I again ask you, on that specific claim, to either clarify, redact or substantiate your claims. I also notice that you repeatedly contribute to propagate the meme that editors holding a view opposite to you are part of an organized effort, without a hint of evidence either. That doesn't strike me as evidence of a collaborative mindset, I'm sorry to say.
• You have indeed been on the receiving end of unacceptable incivility from a small handful of users, and had I still been monitoring the article at that time, I would not have hesitated in blocking them. But you did also, repeatedly and often, respond in kind, and are painting a quite large number of editors and admins with a broad attacking brush. Two wrongs do not make one right. When you get bitten, don't bite back, ask for independent review and intervention. You also shouldn't be held accountable for the behaviour of some of the most extreme SPAs in that case, but in the same vein, you might also want to reconsider just how much support you give to the indefensible when it happens to be coming from people holding views close to yours - your "wow, you were indeffed" comment to PhanuelB, when you obviously don't even know the history for instance strikes me as inappropriate and ill-conceived, in particular when just a few lines above you see ample evidence that multiple independent reviews have let the block stand.
• So please do follow your declaration of intentions and collaboration above with actions and clarify, retract or substantiate your claims. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • MLauba, I have made no personal attacks on that AN/I thread (though I have been on the receiving end) of them there (I don't see you asking the others to redact their provable personal attacks against me). I have clarified my comments now twice. Please read above for my most recent explaination.
  • While I thank you for admitting that there are many personal attacks levied against me, I take exception to your classification of me repeatedly and often responding in kind. I freely admit, and have apologized for, personal attacks I have made. But in the end, you are right. The mere fact that certain editors and Admin have levied several times more personal attacks against me than I have of them doesn't excuse the personal attacks I've made. That is why I apologize for my incivility when it is pointed out to me. It is a shame that other editors and Admin cannot do the same.
  • I do not believe that my comment on the AN/I thread was uncivil in any way. I know it can be painful to see how your actions are perceived by others, but I have explained and substantiated my comments. If you feel my explanations and substantiations are inadequate, perhaps you can better explain why you feel this way, or maybe it is best to ask for third party opinions.
  • Finally, I have not made only declaration of collaboration. I have been acting collaboratively for months now. You can see from my edit history that I have worked frequently and civilly with editors who do not agree with me to make substantive changes to the article. The biggest source of contention has been my belief that the established editors are too uncivil to the newer ones.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So this is how it works? If I support a restriction on Delta you will target pages I edit for deletion? Mathewignash (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm only nominating articles that fail WP:V and WP:N. And it's not as if you've had enough time to fix them, is it? I last looked at them six months ago. And I've only looked at articles in a single sub-category starting with "A" and "B". What does that tell you? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • One thing, I'd prefer you NOT nominated TEAM pages for deletion, because have been trying to merge back individuals to their team pages. So don't nominate pages like the Commandos for deletion, becuase that sort of screws up merging the Commando members back to their page. Even if the current pack lacks notability, they will soon have the references of it's team members added to it. Mathewignash (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well source them properly and show they're notable, then. If the team pages don't show any notability then their members certainly can't, can they? Frankly, I don't believe a lot of these teams are notable outside the Transformers universe either (and hence not notable to Wikipedia). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a good time to push WP:POINTy stuff

Cleaning up NFCC / FUR issues and focusing bulk cleanups on those who vocally opposed Beta/Delta's recent abuses are two very different things.

Defending Delta by emulating the behavior that has been criticized and led to a 2/3 majority (but perhaps not actionable consensus) support on a topic ban for Delta from those activities seems slightly insane.

Please knock it off. This is not helping. NFCC enforcement has to be done by people with and generating more of community support. Throwing a huge fuck you upraised finger to people in the middle of a dispute only gets people madder and more likely to absolutist responses. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly you're clueless about my editing patterns. I spent most of late 2010 trying to fix the Transformers clusterfuck (and that's what it is, something like 1,500 articles and 6,000 non-free images on one franchise). I have had a long wikibreak, partly due to personal reasons, and have now resumed trying to fix the issues that no-one else can be bothered to. So please don't lecture me about what I should and shouldn't be doing. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a remarkably bad time to restart this type of behavior. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • So when would be a good time to carry on fixing these problems? From your tone, it almost sounds like you think I'm doing something wrong. Anyway, I've already told Mathew that I won't fix any more articles for a few days (and which ones I'll tackle next) in order to give him a chance to fix the problems himself. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, basically a threat, do what I want to the articles, or I'll do it myself. Very civil. Some people planned to have the holiday off, not spend it working on wikipedia editing articles to Black Kite's will. Mathewignash (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Not my will, Wikipedia's policies, Mathew. OK then, what sort of time frame are we looking at for you to fix these, given that absolutely nothing has happened regarding NFCC in Transformers articles in the last six months? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I have no time frame. I edit when I'm available, and I wish you would stop with the lie that NOTHING has been done with the articles in 6 months. We have been constantly improving the articles, removing or updating images, and adding a ton of sources. The new project I've been working on is merging teams into one page. So for instance, so instead f one page for every member of a Transformer team, they all appear on one. For instance I've been working on Pretenders, and another guy has been merging Mini-Cons. Of course I haven't done any work on them in 2 days because I'm having to deal with your mass deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
            • So in other words you don't actually have any interest in fixing the problems that you introduced. And it isn't a lie, Mathew, you know very well that the vast majority of the problems that exist with non-free images in those articles - problems that you have been well aware of for more than a year now - have not been fixed except where someone else did it for you. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Doubledealer image

Would you be willing to take the issue of the triple-image from a commercial to a neutral third party or notice board? I'd accept their judegment if you will. Mathewignash (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Mathew, read MONTAGE again - "fair-use components are rarely appropriate, as each non-free image used in the creation of the montage contributes towards consideration of minimal use of non-free images." - in other words that's 3 non-free images. I'd be quite happy with one - and that's all it needs! We're arguing about something pointless here ... Black Kite (t) (c) 02:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I opened a dispute resolution here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Three_frames_from_a_commercial_of_a_fictional_character_shapeshifting. Feel free to make comments there. Mathewignash (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

King & King

Would like your opinion of this article. This short article has 2 non-free images. NFCC 3a? – Lionel ^(talk) 00:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, I think that's probably OK because the second image is clearly important to the article. One could argue that the image could be replaced by text describing it, but I think with such a well-sourced section the usage is acceptable. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Black Kite. It's been awhile lol. Anyway, are you currently online? If so let me know. Thanks. Caden ^cool 03:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale report

Just FYI: I looked at some of the images on the report of images without a rationale. At least File:Mirage2000H_of_the_IAF.jpg does have a non-free use rationale typed on the image page. Moreover, the image has not been edited since 2007, and Masem claims that every image through the beginning of 2008 was already put into compliance with #10c at that time. I see several other examples of this sort on the list of "images without a rationale", where there is both a link to the article and a typed rationale of some sort. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• These are false positives, because the FUR isn't in the "standard" format. These are of course easy to fix, but until they are, the report picks them up as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, but these sorts of things make it harder to take the bare numbers from the reports as meaningful. I just looked at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline again and it doesn't require any particular format; it doesn't even seem to explicitly have a requirement to put a backlink, at the moment. But e.g File:India House collage2.jpg does have a backlink and a detailed rationale. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but this is why this is a laborious task. The DBR is useful because it shows everything that doesn't comply, but this is only useful if people fix correct but non-compliant FURs to the correct format. The other problem is that such FURs quite often don't meet NFCC. Regardless, there are clearly many thousands of such images. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchmount Road (2nd nomination)

Are you sure this was the correct closing with only two non-SPAs in favor of deleting while two were in favor of keeping citing our guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously I can't make a decision on my own view of the article - that would be a supervote - but the points made by the Delete voters & Floydian were not rebutted. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Birchmount Road==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Birchmount Road. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Transformers AfDs

Hey, wanted to thank you for your work in XfD. I just wanted to mention something for consideration in the future in relation to your Transformer AfDs-- if you're going to nominate several, very similar articles with the same justification for deletion, you can group them into one AfD rather than make several, separate AfD discussion for them. Let me know if I'm wrong (e.g. I might be missing something in that they might be substantially different from each other), but I think editors in the discussion are likely to repeat arguments verbatim across all of these. You can check out how to list multiple pages in a single AfD discussion here. Thanks, and take care. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, every time that has been tried, people have managed to find ways in which the articles are apparently "different" and thus suggested the AfDs should be separate .... Black Kite (t) (c) 12:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, that's annoying. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing of Articles for deletion/Bonfire Night

Hello. I'm a little surprised by the decision to Keep the article. An alternative review of the discussions could easily arrive at a decision of No consensus. Although many of the !votes voiced duplicated views, IMO the Keep !votes lacked the clarity of argument and explanation made in voicing other opinions. In light of this, you'll understand that I have some concerns over the validity of the closure. An explanation of your assessment of the discussion and subsequent decision would be appreciated. Thanks very much. --Trevj (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• After looking at this again, I agree with you and have altered the close to reflect that. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering your decision. --Trevj (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Image

Hi, Black Kite. Further to the recent related talk page discussion, I've just re-discovered this long-running review regarding another of the non-free images used in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, File:Kercher single bed pillow by Italian police.jpg. I'd forgotten that it was still open two months after FormerIP made the request (there seems to be a bit of a backlog at WP:NFCR). Having re-examined this particular image and re-read the discussion, I believe that the arguments for deletion are stronger and that this image presents problems similar to the ones that you pointed out in the cases of File:Kercher bra clasp by Italian police.jpg and File:RudyGuedeMugshot.jpg. The bed and pillow photo does not seem to be essential to the reader's understanding of the article subject: File:Kercher room labels by Italian police.jpg makes it partially redundant and it can easily be replaced by descriptive text (since a bloody pillow isn't difficult to visualise). Furthermore, the handprint that is said to have been on the pillow (in the caption provided in the article) isn't clearly visible. The file appears to me to be more illustrative and decorative rather than illustrative and informative. Would you say that there is enough of a consensus to remove and delete at this stage? The arguments in favour of keeping the file seem to be quite weak. SuperMarioMan 16:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would agree; I have to admit I actually missed that photo originally. The first non-free image is fine per NFCC but I don't think that one is. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• What would be the best course of action? Would it be acceptable to close the discussion at this point, remove the file from the article and tag the file as orphaned (as instructed at WP:NFCR)? There seems to be little compelling rationale for keep, and after all this time the discussion seems to have more or less run its course. I'm just reflecting for a moment before making any unilateral action here, since a breakdown of four votes for delete and two for keep isn't a clear consensus (although the delete arguments have far more merit in my opinion, and of course it should be about strength of argument and not numbers, etc.). SuperMarioMan 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Since I (and you) have discussed this here is it probably best if neither of use closed it; I commented at the NFCR page instead. It may be worth asking at WP:AN to ask if someone can go round and close the outstanding long-term items (not that it needs to be an admin to do so, but it's a well watched page). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good idea - I've commented as well, if it helps to move things forward. SuperMarioMan 21:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Maloof Money Cup

Hi BK. I was wondering if you can tell me what editor originally created this article. I have a lengthy report here and it may be linked. I just want to make sure that there aren't any editors out there pushing these events that I've missed that may have created articles that I've missed. The articles were apparently linked by this template that one of the promotional users had created. OlYeller^Talktome 12:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Created by User:JakePLGDannyBob, his only creation. Another user (User:Pdx applejacks) edited it heavily but has no other contributions, whilst all remaining registered editors were making minor fixes and changes. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Birchmount Road

Hi. I moved User:Black Kite/Birchmount Road back to Birchmount Road and redirected per the outcome of WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 13. Could you restore Talk:Birchmount Road so that I can place the AfD and {{Copied}} templates? Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:77.77.25.241

Hey Black Kite,

The IP you blocked through the ANI report is now socking through another IP [3]. Regards, Athenean (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That guy isn't going to stop easily. Athenean (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seemed easier than playing whack-a-mole. Blocked that one as well, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Only Fate Remains

Hi Black Kite,

I noted the deletion of the page about Only Fate Remains. Reading your reasoning I agree with almost all you stated including the WP:CSB.

However, I feel that the Den Haag / local newspaper argument contains an error. 3voor12 / VPRO is a Dutch national platform; not a local newspaper equivalent. In addition, the other sources contained links to reliable national and international sources, for exmaple: Music From NL (reliable the national website about music in the Netherlands), Reflections Of Darkness (reliable international webzine) and Zware Metalen (reliable one of the biggest metal webzines in the Netherlands). I did not have time to add references to for example Aardschok (biggest rock/metal paper magazine in the Netherlands) and Grote Prijs van Nederland (biggest national band contest of The Netherlands, which the band made it to the semi-finals and was the only one in its genre).

I do not want to rediscuss the topic again, but given this input it might change the way you look at the reasoning regarding deletion?

Thanks so much for your time, Michielvv (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, I know that VPRO is a national platform, but the articles were in the Den Haag local sections of their website, not the main part. I wonder if it would have been better to have the two articles combined into one? With two articles some of the references appeared to relate to the other band. I can restore the articles to userspace if you'd like to try that? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you mean, though the other mentioned sources are not as local as this one I guess?The confusion about the multiple articles is valid, I fully agree. I think it was a mistake from my side to try and split them in the first place. I would love to have simply one Only Fate Remains article which would cover the entire history of the band (including the change of name). If possible, I would very much have feedback on the article once it is finished, to ensure that the "deletion discussions" do not go as they did this time. Would that be possible? Thanks again! Michielvv (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Restores done - see your talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Next time insult me to my face.

Next time you want to veil an insult with closing out a discussion, have the hutzpah to do it on my talk page and be bold about your insult. If you're going to do something do it fully.Camelbinky (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Given that your screed tried to insult practically everyone who had commented in the thread and some who hadn't, I thought my comment was extremely mild. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Might want to take a look

Since you were involved in the previous discussions on the same topic, you might be interested to join in this discussion. —SW— ^squeal 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi BK - I've proposed something for the GNAA COI issue at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conclusion, decision. Several GNAA members have voted, as have two neutral editors, and myself (involved, I suppose). I'm trying to get more neutral editors to comment on the proposal (a topic ban of sorts), and was wondering - seeing as you'd already commented - if you would oblige me? As far as canvassing goes, I'm only contacting neutral editors - no-one from the anti-GNNA crowd. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

warning

What is wrong with me nominating some clearly non notable articles for deletion regardless of how i came upon them?184.164.148.90 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist stamp

I'm a little disappointed with this outcome, and wish that you had provided an explanation for deletion given that there was appropriate sourcing and several editors who supported either keeping, renaming, or merging the article. Could you give me a compelling explanation as to why this AfD earned a consensus on deletion? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)