User talk:Black Kite/Archive 56

WP:AN

It'd be clearer for someone reading AN close request top down if you strike out your original accept. (Feel free to dump the note I left below it) NE Ent 17:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Aye, good point. Will do it now. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)

Actually there's several of unreliable or questionable sources like Muumuse, hardrockhaven.net, etc. Can you remove those? 115.164.188.79 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Willy Monfret

The article Willy Monfret have been deleted a couple of months ago because he wasn't relevant enough. 2014 he has become a lot more relevant for Wikipedia. He is an model, actor and Dj. He did campaigns for big labels such as Ralph Lauren and Revlon this year and after his lead role in Nicki Minaj's short movie The Pinkprint Movie, he has been become known worldwide. His fans search for him online but there isn't a wikipedia page. Louiseenv (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI mention

Hi, I've opened a thread on WP:ANI the OverlordQ matter and I mentioned your name, of which I think I need to be formally notifying you of it :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Mamou-Mani

Perhaps you didn't realize that one of the Keep !votes at this AFD was from an SPA with an apparent conflict of interest. At a minimum it's a candidate for re-listing, an article shouldn't go from near A7 speedy delete to keep by no consensus on the back of an SPA/COI vote. Cheers Vrac (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Arthur Mamou-Mani

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arthur Mamou-Mani. 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. Vrac (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a Psychiatric Illness

Homosexuality is not a romantic atraction, the third sex, or anything like that. It is sexually deviant behaviour, just like pedophilia, transxesualism, etc. The vast majority of research this article is based one was carried out by homosexual psychologists. Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric illness not long ago, and it was removed from DSM because of complaints by homosexuals, and all of the sudden, all homosexuals were cured. Now it is normal to be homsexual, even though normal is what most people are (heterosexuals). But no problem, there is hope and cure for homosexuals. For all homosexuals out there who run this website, olease check: http://www.sodahead.com/living/homosexuality-is-just-sexual-deviant-behavior-not-a-mental-illness/question-3514517/190.23.36.195 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know why you inmediately deleted my disscussion on the homosexuality wikipidia talk page. Please give me a reasonable explanation as to why you don't want others to see this and begin a disscussion on the subject so the information can be improved (instead of being one sided towards the homosexual agenda). The link I have placed directects to an interview with a highly respected and regarded psychologist. Also, please stop blocking me. I have dynamic IP. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.10.231.249 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're trolling. Your information is not useful, and is also homophobic. Trolling gets your information removed, and you blocked. Like this. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI nonsense

Here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Black Kite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't received an email. Can you try it again? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sent again...hopefully? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just checking if you saw my reply slash talkpage ping. I have a list of diffs there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, got it. Haven't got much time to look right now, but I protected the main article so that should hopefully sort the main problem out for now. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, let me know what you think of the diffs when you're able to look. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Shall I request for mediation or arbitration? I thank you for another full protection, but the article has suffered from content disputes that led to many full protections. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's only had a couple of full protections. I'm more concerned about some of the editors involved, and will be watching carefully over gthe next few weeks. Too early to go to arbitration, mediation might be an idea but I've not seen it work well in the past. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I should have, but I've filed it already: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality. I just want a cycle to end already. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Justification

What is the justification for restoring a deleted article as a draft? There was no consensus in the deletion discussion for "userification" or turning it into a draft. No deletion review has taken place to institute a "userfication" result. Community consensus deleted the article, and it must remain deleted, unless a review determines otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 02:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Justification is not required for restoration of a deleted article as a draft. As long as it is not restored in mainspace and the article history is intact to comply with copyright requirements, it is at the discretion of the restoring admin. Community consensus is not required for such action. If you have a problem with this, feel free to express it in a more appropriate forum. —Dark 05:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

According to whom? Consensus was "delete", not "move to draftspace". It is no longer "deleted". No deletion review has taken place. Why exactly is this tolerated? I suppose it is a waste of time to do an AfD, if anyone can just recreate whatever is deleted willy-nilly for no reason, regardless of the consensus established. RGloucester — ☎ 06:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

it wasn't restored in mainspace. So why exactly does it bother you? Draftspace is not indexed. If you have a problem with current practices, I suggest you take it to the appropriate venue. —Dark 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest dropping the stick. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Any editor, at any time, can ask for deleted articles to be restored to user or draft space as long as they do not contain BLP, copyright or any other serious violations. Given that there obviously is interest in seeing the content, I don't really see the problem. If it's still there untouched in a few months, it can always be deleted again. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Interest amongst who? What the heck is the point of deletion if the article is not deleted? This is a recipe for disaster. A deleted article with severe issues was deleted for a reason. What's next, giving people a copy of Jews and Communism because there is an "interest" in seeing it? It was DELETED. It must be DELETED. Do I have to start a new AfD for the draft? RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, clearly there is, because people are editing it. But regardless, MfD is your venue, as this is not a mainspace article. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is a mainspace article. The history is still there, history that was supposed to be DELETED. Nothing about the deletion decision implied moving to another namespace would be sufficient. The result was DELETE. RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -Let's just hold on here for a damn minute. The deleted article history has been recreated in the 'draft article' that is full protected, and the admin User:Metamagician3000 has basically recreated the fucking article that was just deleted? With the draft being full protected so regular editors can't even tag the damn thing with a CSD tag. And yes, it needs to be CSD tagged, it's a recreation of an article recently deleted. What the fuck??? Dave Dial (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, my fault, I forgot protection followed an inter-namespace move. I've removed it now. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• That still doesn't explain why you moved the history to a 'draft' that didn't exist before you moved it there. There was a 'draft' here, named Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, but there was not one where you moved the history. All the 'draft' is where you moved it is a recreation of the old article that was deleted. Which is against policy. Why are we circumventing policy over and over, just because Jimbo made a few comments? Dave Dial (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think several people are overreacting here. First things first; it is pretty common for a draft or new article, when the subject has been previously deleted, to have the previous history restored. It is also pretty common, and reasonable, for an article to be restored to draftspace (or userspace) after being deleted, so editors can continue working on it in the hopes of producing a policy-compliant article. Just because something has been deleted at AfD, does not mean that it can never ever ever be returned to Wikipedia. Quite why you are freaking out so much over this, RGloucester, I don't know... Also, DD2K, if an article is restored in userspace or draftspace, then there is no CSD tag that directly applies to that. It is not, after all, a recreation in mainspace of a deleted article, which is what CSD G4 is for. Can someone actually point to a policy that has been circumvented? Because I'm not aware of one, and all I'm seeing here are overreactions that are not based on arguments that are backed up by policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain where policy says that something that is deleted by community consensus at AfD can be restored unilaterally. I have not seen such a policy, anywhere. According to the deletion policy (WP:DEL), content is only deleted if all previous revisions are hidden from public view. This is not the case presently, and hence, the community decision has been overturned. We now have a variety of people trying to circumvent the AfD closure to restore the article with even more OR, all because of this restoration with no consensus behind it. No deletion review has been had, because these people know that there were no procedural errors. They are taking advantage of this system to reintroduce this OR and nonsensical article into the encylopaedia. It must be stopped. RGloucester — ☎ 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I made it explicitly clear, but I'll say it again. Just because an article was deleted at an AfD, does NOT mean that it has to be expunged from Wikipedia permanently. It is routine for, if a previously-deleted article is rewritten or moved into draft/userspace, for that previous history to be restored. DRV is not required for this, and it never has been. The community voted to delete an article; and indeed, the article was deleted, and right now, is not an article; it's a draft. You should know full well that this is a perfectly legitimate action; it's only the fact that you did not like the content that has caused you to freak out. And, quite frankly, this seems to be your modus operandi; overreacting to absolutely anyone who "opposes" you, and trying to bludgeon them into submission... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

DRV is required, per policy. A new article can be written on the subject, per policy, but the old edit history must remain deleted unless a deletion review determines otherwise. This is not a legitimate action. IT MUST BE DELETED, per policy. The result of the discussion was not "userfy". It was "DELETE". RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you're one hundred percent wrong on everything there, bar the result being delete. Various editors have pointed this out to you, so it's obvious that you simply won't listen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the one that is wrong. Spare me. If you can't read the policies, that's not my fault. RGloucester — ☎ 19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Black Kite for restoring a deleted article as a draft. Wikipedia needs more edits like this! Thank you so much for caring about other editors contributions! 750editsstrong (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Misee Harris

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Misee Harris. 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. —Cryptic 05:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brittany Snow

Hey Black Kite, you protected this article fully due to one editor removing an image. The editor has been blocked, and this protection seems no longer necessary. Just wondering if you felt the same. Gloss 05:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• My mistake, I meant to semi-protect it. Should be fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved then

How about revdeleting the comment that started all this, or do you now think you have solved everything by closing the report? Cassianto^Talk 09:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I could revdelete it - but given that it's now been quoted dozens of times across multiple venues, would there be any point? Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Probably not, and I suppose I see your point. On the whole, this has highlighted some serious failings when admins think it is ok for an analogy like the rape one used towards me can be posted and then ignored. I'm not going drag you into this any further, but my whole desire to edit again has been well and truly lost. Thanks for your time. Cassianto^Talk 09:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Black Kite, I second Cassianto's sentiment. I was called "classic narcissist" by admin The Bushranger on my user Talk [1]--a vicious PA that no editor should have to face on the Wikipedia. There was never any apology, redaction, reprimand, warning, let alone block or sanction on the offending admin. (I did go to another admin to complain, was told: "So what if you're a narcissist?" And when I went to the offending admin's user Talk to complain, it was treated with contempt and my posts reverted.) The admin in question didn't originate the slur, but because of admin status, seems to me does or should know better, is conduct unbecoming, is contrary to WP:ADMINACCT, and no editor should have to be subjected to this. But the philosophy on WP seems to be, egregious personal attacks are okay, if you have a problem with them: "Who cares? Fuck you!" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)