User talk:Black Kite/Archive 81

User's resuest to be unblocked

User thewolfchild has after around 18 months requested to be unblocked.

But see how rude he was to me when I supported him for an unblock, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfchild&diff=prev&oldid=892978225 his response was "didnt ask".

If you look through his history, he has been self-absorbed or even focused/stalking all my edits, and in effect twisting my mind. So take note of this if you unblock him.

Thank you

BlueD954 (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BlueD954: You did not "support him for an unblock", you said precisely the opposite: I do not support the removal of the block, so it's hardly surprising that he removed your comment from his talk page as he is entitled to do. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:E426:1F5B:1559:2F13 (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I did support him for a long block. Who are you to jump into this?! BlueD954 (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nosebagbear#User's_resuest_to_be_unblocked BlueD954 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

All I see is you trying to cause trouble on multiple talk pages. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:E426:1F5B:1559:2F13 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Identify yourself! BlueD954 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing sniping from Wikieditor

So sorry to bring this to you, I just want it to stop. Wikieditor has just posted this at the editwarring thread [1] they wont let up. Please make them stop. Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am watching. I would suggest the best path forward is to disengage from the discussion. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry again, I do bare some responsibility. Believe me, I will not be interacting with that editor again under any circumstances, lesson learnt. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo question

Black Kite, I saw the close of this 3RR report[[2]]. Is this meant to be a topic ban or just blocked from the article? While my editorial views are more aligned with the other editor, I reached out here to try to work to craft an agreed proposed article lead [[3]]. If you and the involved editor are OK with it, I would like to continue to try to work on the lead with that editor. If that would be considered a violation of your sanction then I won't. I'm trying to walk a bit of a tight rope as my editorial views are better aligned with editor A but if editor B and I can agree on a proposed text it's probably a good compromise. Thanks Springee (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Springee: Hi, it's just an article block. I've seen that you're trying to work with Bacondrum, but I felt that Andy Ngo would probably be best without both of the editors for the time being as it was causing disruption over multiple venues. Since it's only an article block, there would be nothing preventing you from working with either of them, as long as it was in a different venue (i.e. your talkpage). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand the thinking and if I were an uninvolved admin I might have elected to do the same. Springee (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee I'll gladly keep working on it with you on my talk page, if you're keen and it's not prevented by the sanction. Bacondrum (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite

I had the good fortune to visit Rwanda this year, Black Kites are absolutely everywhere in Kigali, I did this painting of one while we were there, thought you might appreciate it [4], what with your user name and all. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sent a email

Good evening, I apologize but I sent an email. Nigel757 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to recreate article deleted

You deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sayanim years ago. I have reason to believe it should be recreated.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7254807/Mossads-licence-to-kill.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mossads-little-helpers_b_487173

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/at-home-with-the-mossad-men/DUYRY353K67IPSLKMGKSNBJVTI/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08850600600889431?mobileUi=0&journalCode=ujic20

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie

Similar article has only a single source Bodlim

Please allow me to recreate Sayanim. Thank you.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Given the long period since deletion, and the number of new sources, I would suggest constructing a draft at Draft:Sayanim and presenting it for submission. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I just have created Draft:Sayanim How do I proceed then to submit? BlueD954 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have submitted it for you. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Hello, Black Kite,

Editor Konli17 has been brought to the edit warring noticeboard 5 or 6 times now by different editors in the past two weeks and no action has been taken in any of the complaints and they just get archived. One editor came to my talk page bringing my attention to his behavior but I don't patrol ANEW and am not up-to-date at the standards of judgment and typical sanctions on that noticeboard. When I looked at his contribution history, it seems that while he might be disruptive to other editors, he hasn't breeched the 3 revert bright line in the time period I examined.

I guess I'm coming to you because Ed isn't closing these complaints and you commented upon one of them. I'm not sure why the previous complaints are going without a resolution unless this subject area is just a minefield with multiple bad actors. Any chance you could look over any of the four complaints currently on the board? By the way, I have asked Konli17 to please come to ANEW to address the complaints but he avoids discussions, probably because he is outnumbered on many of these articles. Thanks for any closure you could bring to this conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Liz: Hi. I think the issue here runs deeper than just Konli17, as you suggest with your "outnumbered" comment. Other editors involved in the article area have also been brought to dramaboards before, i.e. Beshogur at AE. I am wondering if we need some sort of ability to enforce arbitration remedies on these editors and articles? Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, the main problem is that admins are not looking at what certain editors are adding to the articles, Konli17 has repeatedly added straight false maps he has made in MS Paint, they have no reliable sources whatsoever, I have tried to talk to him repeatedly at the talkpage but he doesn't listen, just continues to edit war his made up maps into the articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: Hi - can you give me a range of diffs for those please so I can investigate? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, The two fake maps: [5][6], He has edit warred them into the article in these diffs, together with other pov changes: He started doing this on august 7 removing two documented historical maps and adding his fake maps:[7], and then it continued: [8][9][10][11]"(Introduce changes agreed on talk"[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]....we have tried discussing with him [21][22][23][24][25], in this discussion:[26] I point out to him: "The fake "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist" map is not even following the unreliable source you added, the unreliable source extends the Kurdish-occupied region to the Mediterranean Sea, while your fake MS Paint map does not."...his reply? Just continue to edit war the fake map into the article. There is no end to this, your lock of the article will not change anything. As is clear he doesn't care about reliable sources, he doesn't care if his maps doesn't even follow the sources, he just continues to forcibly edit war his agenda into the article. And as can be seen in the diffs, the maps is only one part of the problem. There is large disputes about the texts aswell. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans

Hi BK. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans, but I disagree with your close. Specifically:

1. There is around a 60/40 numerical majority in favour of deleting this article, but there are clearly issues as to the rationales for doing so. The most common rationale appears to be WP:POVFORK, but as pointed out in numerous places, there appears to be no agreement about which article it is actually a POVFORK of - indeed, I see at least six separate articles mentioned in Delete rationales. The large number of articles proposed suggest that this is actually an article that covers information from all of those articles, rather than forking material from just one. - This read to me like a !vote, not a summary of consensus. Why do the delete !voters need to agree on which article is a POVFORK of in order for their !vote to be given full weight? I don't see anything in PAGs that suggests this. If three editors think an article is a POVFORK of three different articles and they don't agree which one, that's still consensus that it's a POVFORK. All three editors agree that the article shouldn't exist; they don't need to agree about why. The idea that "The large number of articles proposed suggest that this is actually an article that covers information from all of those articles, rather than forking material from just one." is your opinion--literally arguing against a delete rationale--it is not the opinion of most of the participants in the discussion. (It is not my opinion.) What basis is there for suggesting that a POVFORK must be a POVFORK of one article and cannot be a POVFORK of multiple articles? What basis is there for suggesting that POVFORK-based delete !votes should be discounted unless they agree on which article it's a POVFORK of?
2. Furthermore, numerous Delete comments make no mention of which article it is a POVFORK of, which makes them less useful ... - If Editor A !votes "POVFORK of Foo and Bar", and Editor B !votes "POVFORK per Editor A", Editor B's !vote should not be discounted simply because Editor B failed to say "Foo and Bar". "Per others" is a valid !vote. There were plenty of specific articles put forward for the POVFORK argument (which you yourself acknowledge with ... it would normally be logical only to post a note on the talk pages of the articles which were claimed to have been forked from (although I appreciate that in this case that would have been a significant number of articles)). I don't think "failed to specify which article" is a valid reason to discount a !vote, where many other !voters specified articles, and I'm not aware of anything in PAGs or precedent supporting this view.
3. ... others appear to be invoking NPOV as a delete rationale, which it is not. That's exactly what POVFORK is: an NPOV-based deletion rationale. With all due respect, I think this statement is flat wrong.

I submit 60/40 in favor of deletion with no valid reasons to discount delete !votes = consensus to delete. Lev¡vich 19:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, general previous consensus is that NPOV on its own is not a reason for deletion unless the article is so obviously biased that it is beyond rescue (i.e. an article entitled Why Americans are stupid clearly isn't happening even if we could find RS saying that Americans were more poorly educated than other Western countries). A POVFORK is quite a different kettle of fish, and is a reason for deletion if an article is unequivocally one. But a POVFORK is quite a simple thing to establish, and as many of the Keep voters noted it is difficult to say that an article is a POVFORK if editors are suggesting it is a fork of one or more of half a dozen articles. Given that this is unclear at best, and given that POVFORK was given as the overriding deletion rationale by most in favour, I could not see a logical way to finding a policy-based consensus of "Delete" here. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't most !voters agree that the article is so obviously biased that it is beyond rescue, and that is why they !voted delete? Where in WP:POVFORK does it say it is difficult to say that an article is a POVFORK if editors are suggesting it is a fork of one or more of half a dozen articles? Why couldn't an article be a POVFORK of multiple articles? Lev¡vich 23:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, but a significant number also said that it was not. As was pointed out in the AfD, the POVFORK argument is weakened by the fact that a number of the articles invoked as being the source of the POVFORK were covering very different areas, even if they were all linked to the subject of this one. Effectively, the Keep comments were saying that if people were agreeing that "look, this is simply an NPOV version of article X", then that is one thing; but if it is apparently a POVFORK of many multiple articles, then laying aside the NPOV issues for a moment it is not unreasonable for them to argue that the article is filling a gap in the coverage and not duplicating content. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course there would be overlap. It is plausible that an article would be a WP:POVFORK to circumvent consensus in multiple articles, not just one. You are completely focused on picking holes in the "Delete" arguments, focusing on this apparent indecision about which article it was a POVFORK of, but the fact is almost all of the content could be subsumed under Israel and the apartheid analogy and Israeli Occupation of the West Bank. WP:POVFORK is not a "you only get to pick one" proposition. And by the way, the Keep arguments were mostly cursory and fall back on "it's well sourced" or "it meets GNG." None of this is a justification for establishing a spinoff article. And lastly, the widespread perception that the article is irredeemably biased is a sign that the article is in fact a POV FORK. I find the reasoning behind this incredibly questionable, and I would like to see this closure challenged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, I was the original nom for that AfD and was also quite shocked to see this outcome. My reading of the discussion was that most uninvolved editors were in favour of deletion and a number of related but strong reasons for this were given, yet almost all of these points/!votes were immediately challenged or mischaracterised by a group of 3/4 very vocal regular editors from within the Palestine/Israel topic area, who lobbied hard for its retention and often repeated their arguments. I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on the ins and outs of deletion policy, and it may be the case that my assessment is coloured by a personal judgement that the article is clearly unacceptable, but as I saw Levivich had left you a message I thought I'd also chime in. Regardless, I appreciate that closing an AfD like this would not be easy and do appreciate you doing so. Jr8825 • Talk 22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi - I tend not to determine people's rationale by their viewpoints on the subject concerned, even if I know they have a particular standpoint on a subject, but I did note that were approximately an equal number of the "usual" Israel/Palestine editors from each "side" weighing in on this AfD, so I didn't take that as a weighting factor. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Closed AE report again already

Excuse me, but why have you reclosed the AE report on Yurvict so rapidly again? Have been trying to address this situation but like a lot of folks, I have a job too. I posted my statement just now.--MONGO (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You're allowed to question someone's competency because you don't do this as habit or to deliberately malign another and that is why unlike Valjean/Bullrangifer, you do not have an AE warning to not question others competency. I fully understand the initial rationale to close but do not understand why this matter now has to be reopened in yet another case?--MONGO (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• At AE it's much easier to deal with cases one at a time, and there's little point keeping a case open when the result is obvious. Now clearly, sometimes a case develops into something involving far more than one editor (especially if it's the OP). However here there are only a few people mentioning it, and Valjean is not the editor bringing the AE case. If someone wants to bring a case against Valjean, it's a matter of a few seconds to do so, and it will be a much more useful discussion as it will only involve them, and not others. I wasn't joking with the CIR issue, by the way - an experienced editor who deliberately ignores core policy is either being disruptive on purpose or is showing lack of competence. The fact that it may just be the former was why I didn't originally mention it. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Was not questioning the sanction that was placed. You are of course fully within your rights to state the CIR issues because you're not under prior sanction to avoid that characterization.--MONGO (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Or indeed because it's very possible that is the actual reason for the editor's behaviour. If an editor is behaving incompetently then the they are (a) doing it deliberately, which is disruption, or (b) not aware they're doing it, which is incompetence. In this case the reason is probably (a), but (b) is possible. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, so even though Valjean was warned to not question or suggest that another has a competency issue, they ARE allowed to do this if you and others have as well?--MONGO (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, MONGO, the situations are entirely different. My sanction applied to "speculation" that was seen as bordering on aspersions on article talk pages, not the current, very serious, formal, and 100% accurate analysis (as done by Black Kite right above) made in a setting directly and explicitly made for dealing with such issues. My sanction did not ban me from such serious participation. It banned me from hounding other editors in doubtful situations.

This was a black and white case, with no doubt or speculation on my part or the part of all the others who also mentioned the basic CIR issue we're seeing. That the editor is a long-term editor, and that they have a clean block log, are both red herrings. This is a sad situation, and Valereee puts it well:

This is so depressing. A long-time productive editor who suddenly this month drastically changes their editing pattern. Yurivict seems to have gone off the rails along with the US sociopolitical system. I do agree that we need diverse opinion, including about what qualifies as a reliable source, and I do worry that we silence conservative opinions. But honestly, Yurivict, if the WSJ and National Review aren't giving credence to the stuff OAN's going on and on about, we can't take it seriously either. The WSJ/National Review should be the gold standard for editors on the right. If they don't think it's a big deal/true, we don't either. Support AP2 TBAN for now. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We're seeing what happens to editors who have followed Trump down his "all RS are fake news" rabbit hole. Once-good editors have lost their competence to evaluate good sources because they have hitched their wagon to Trump. Yurivict is the most egregious example I have seen here, and the fact that Trump has lost the election will not change the future. His supporters, including editors here, will suffer long-term damage to their ability to evaluate sources for reliability. They are now fundamentally opposed to our RS policy. Unfortunately, we now have editors who are good at hiding that they would love to side with Yurivict, because they share the same problem, but I'm not going to start cases against them. I'll let others do that if it becomes necessary. Until then, they will appear in cases like this and defend the incompetent editor.

We're dealing with very different situations, and punishing me for being right, defending policy, and siding with the majority opinions in this Yurifict case would set a very bad precedent. Editors who are right would be punished for demonstrating it, and fringe editors (those who push false narratives and the unreliable sources they come from) would be rewarded and encouraged.

What you're doing is a form of insidious tit-for-tat both-siderism; "If Fox News is to be deprecated, then CNN should also be deprecated because they are equally bad" (they are in different universes) and "You used policy to punish one of ours who violated policy, so we're going to punish one of yours for siding with those policies and speaking out." The consequence of allowing this is that editors will not be allowed to speak out in favor of policies without placing themselves in danger for doing so. Do you understand the absurdity of this? "If one is right in defending policy in a formal setting like this, one risks punishment." That has a very chilling and potentially deadly effect. You need to think about the consequences of your hounding me. This isn't the first time. -- Valjean (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. I am doing zero that is in any way insidious and your insinuation that I am is ridiculous. Later today I will open a new AE thread to examine your behavior and seek administrative review.--MONGO (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: Have a look at Yurivict's comment below this section. Now, do you see why I believed that CIR might indeed be an issue here? Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I am NOT questioning that close against that editor nor YOUR rationale..I am merely asking for clarification as to whether Valjean is, since they were warned to not do so again, allowed to also call CIR into discussions. Even when they do not use said wording precisely, they still insinuate and make claims that are very much akin to this competency issue.--MONGO (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I realise that, but I'm pointing out why I re-closed the AE, given that there was a genuine reason to be concerned about CIR, and therefore any case against Valjean should be raised in a separate AE or ANI filing, rather than this one. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW. I think this is probably cognitive dissonance, possibly not actually long-term CIR since we're talking about a long-time productive editor. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful. I hope this editor will be able to come back from this at some point. Plenty of people looked back on their participation in McCarthy trials and Segregation now and regretted their own actions. —valereee (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, if I get trouted for this, I'd accept it. It's good to get reminded to be more careful. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the reason for my ban ?

Hello. You added a ban notice without stating a reason. Could you please do so? Yurivict (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• The topic ban reason is included in the notice I posted (You have been sanctioned per the diffs, arguments, and other evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Yurivict). Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Diffs show me asking questions about reliable sources. Is questioning of sources not allowed on Wikipedia? What Wikipedia rule bans questions about sources? Yurivict (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a unanimous consensus amongst the uninvolved admins commenting that a topic ban was necessary; you can read their comments there. Please follow the instructions given on the topic ban notice if you wish to appeal it. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what rule did I violate. Is it not allowed to question sources? That is all I did. If questioning sources not allowed, what is the point of voting about sources? I need answers. Yurivict (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)