User talk:Black Kite/Archive 67

Re your ANI comments

I'd like a discussion between the two of us only regarding this matter. It seems to me that you have taken sides with an editor who has succeeded in provoking a number of experienced editors over a period of time and continues to do so. Let's face it, disagreement at AfD is almost inevitable and sometimes a difference of opinion can lead to argument. Usually, however, an argument is contained within the individual AfD because the opposing sides mean well and are not being disruptive or trying to twist meanings in a way that might mislead inexperienced editors. There is a lot to read below but please read it all thoroughly.

The problems with this user began in December 2015 re the disputed article Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) which was twice raised at AfD and had an interim DRV. In the DRV, Reyk says: "I'm honestly starting to wonder if this whole article and DRV is not just an experiment to see how much bullshit one can get away with around here". That is a breach of WP:AGF re everyone in WP:CRIC and without any good reason. The debate was effectively about GNG v. SSG and the CRIC members were simply defending the article on the basis of WP:CRIN which is our SSG. As a result, he was warned by User:Dweller about his unpleasant attitude. As Dweller said, the discussion until then had been "a serious conversation and everyone is well-intentioned". Nobody provoked Reyk into behaving like that. There were several other people opposing the article but all well-intentioned and certainly pleasant enough in the way they presented their views. He reluctantly agreed to remove "bullshit" but not the unpleasant tone and he did that here. It must be said that "bullshit" is a single word only which, in itself, is not a problem in this day and age; the point is that the sentence remains an unpleasant accusation that WP:CRIC members act in bad faith. This was the reaction to the above by User:The-Pope who correctly asserts that he (like everyone else in WP:CRIC) is "here to improve the encyclopedia, not insult others or question their motives". This is where we begin to see WP:NOTHERE taking shape. Reyk answered The-Pope with this and restates his bad faith accusation by saying that he "can genuinely only wonder what games are being played here". That is bang out of order. No one else was accusing us of bad faith so what was his agenda? The "game being played" was the assertion by several members of WP:CRIC that, in compliance with WP:CRIN, anyone who has played in a first-class match is a notable subject. WP:CRIN is a consensus guideline and equates to WP:NFOOTY, WP:NBASE, etc., etc.

Moving on to the second AfD soon afterwards, this was again a serious discussion by well-intentioned editors on the sides of GNG v. SSG until a delete vote was posted by Reyk. He begins with this statement which is palpably untrue: "The only sources in this article are the same ones we saw in the first AfD and the DRV". In the original article, there were no inline citations and only a vague mention of CricketArchive in EL; even the AfD nominator agreed that one new source ESPNcricinfo had been found. Reyk continues with this statement which is deliberately misleading given the context: "They are nothing but statistical entries, and one is a bare list of links that doesn't even mention him". The "bare list of links" is a list of matches played by Perera's club and the citation is used to affirm a sentence about the club and obviously does not mention the player. He ends his statement by saying that "it's astonishing that this has been permitted". What is astonishing is how he can use lies and twists of context as the basis for an argument. As with his submissions to the DRV, he had not been provoked and we could only wonder where he was coming from. I did respond to that submission by saying that his assertion was misleading and should be ignored. Whereupon he accuses us of "gamesmanship", which is another bad faith assertion.

There is arguably another bad faith accusation the next day when Reyk posts this and I think that was the origin of the problems between him and Bobo192. Bobo responded with an apology as his action may have led to misinterpretation. Bobo did then challenge Reyk about his double standards given the warning he had received from Dweller. Okay, perhaps Bobo should have let that sleeping dog lie but perhaps he was justified in telling the pot that he can't call the kettle black. Reyk responded with this and it contains another lie because Dweller did not object to a swear word: he objected to unpleasantness which was not revoked. Whether Bobo should have commented on the double standards or not, there is no justification for a hostile response ending in "mendacious fuckwittery", whatever that is supposed to mean.

We then move on to the next section of the AfD, opened by Dweller with this comment. All perfectly reasonable and yet it produces first, this response from Reyk in which he sarcastically states: "I think I made that clear earlier, but since you weren't paying attention I'll repeat myself". He goes on about NCRIC being "strongly disputed" and I would ask who by? Apart from him, nobody. Others, like St Anselm who was CRIC's main opponent in the discussion, raised questions about that particular player but certainly did not strongly dispute a project guideline that was created by WP:CONSENSUS, is maintained and updated by consensus and exists (through NSPORTS and numerous AfD cases) by consensus. Dweller then challenged one of his statements and finds himself being called a "jerkass" in the edit summary of this odious response which includes "really fucking petty, even for you". Dweller justifiably responded with this ANI warning, including the sound advice that "ad-hominem stuff doesn't belong anywhere on WP". Surely no one would disagree with that. No one except Reyk, that is, who replies to Dweller with this. The most offensive part of that is actually "erroneous sources". The sources are genuine. No argument about that at all. As, indeed, Dweller tells him.

Reyk's attitude to consensus is then highlighted by this instant endorsement of an unauthorised (and ludicrous) change of WP:NCRIC by someone called Müdigkeit. This amendment had the effect of declaring all first-class cricketers including the likes of W. G. Grace, Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers to fail WP:NSPORTS and so rely on GNG only for notability. Absolutely ridiculous and this is where we begin to think in terms of WP:CIR, unless of course something more sinister is afoot. It is at this point that Lugnuts puts himself into the Reyk firing line because he reverts NCRIC "until there's a consensus to change it". The change was reverted and the resultant discussion at the NSPORTS talk page resoundingly opposed the change (note that the precise wording of NCRIC was later modified to be in synch with CRIN).

The AfD was then closed with a "keep" consensus. WP:CRIC was subjected to some very nasty insinuations and, although we are not perfect (neither is any other project), we do our best to create and improve articles. We do NOT invent sources and we do NOT allow cricket articles to be created which fail WP:CRIN. The accusations made against us in the Perera case were downright insulting and without foundation. The admins in CRIC could not take action because of WP:INVOLVED but I have to ask where were the rest of the admins who should have seen that an AfD had got out of hand because of Reyk's unreasonable attitude and insulting insinuations.

Okay, no action was taken against Reyk then and the article was kept so we all moved on. Or did we?

On 31 December 2015, Reyk removed himself from the WP:CRICMEM list and said in his edit summary: "no longer wish to associate with this mob".

In April this year, Reyk was on our case again beginning with this entry into a VP issue. The nominator did not mention cricket, as his specific concern was with WP:NCYCLING, but Reyk just has to assert that "it's super duper mega important to erect a shiny little shrine to every farmer who once hit a cricket ball around a church backyard in 1834". Clearly, he has an issue with cricket and our project which goes beyond reasonable concern. Lugnuts pointed out, as Bobo had done in the Perera AfD, that the pot cannot call the kettle black.

Reyk's response, by now predictable, was this hostile and abusive insult and he repeated the word "fuckwit" in the edit summary. WP:NPA? WP:CIVIL? Lugnuts rightly said: "I strongly recommend you apologise and retract that last comment". And Reyk replied No and no. Normal behaviour by an editor who is seeking to build an encyclopaedia, work together with other editors, respect consensus, etc.? I don't think so. Lugnuts reported him to ANI and raised the WP:NOTHERE issue about which Reyk later denied all knowledge. Reyk's responses begin with "knock that shit right off" and end with a somewhat childish "leave me alone".

He returned to his anti-cricket theme in September at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. You will see in this AfD that he voted "delete" and said: "A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability". Bobo challenged this and asked him, quite reasonably, "How many games would you like to see a player achieve before you considered him "sufficiently" notable?" Despite several attempts to elicit an answer, it was not forthcoming. Reyk is opposing WP:CRIN for the sake of it and cannot (or will not) offer any kind of constructive suggestion as to how it might be improved. It has been agreed by consensus over many years (and in synch with other sports projects) that one highest level appearance confers notability. Can you imagine the chaos there would be if we did not define a set number of appearances or if we set a number greater than one? Reyk is defying consensus in his stance and, at AfD certainly, it is confrontational, disruptive and negative behaviour.

On the same day, he joined Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) where he insisted on deletion because it is a "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known". He then resumed his hostility towards WP:CRIC, stating: "that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". Whitehead's article has subsequently been expanded but, at the time of the AfD, it was a four-line stub which provided a reasonable amount of information and listed (albeit in a bibliography section) a number of relevant sources. One cited source affirmed that Whitehead played in at least FOURTEEN first-class matches and was a match organiser/patron as well as a player. Therefore, Reyk's argument was nonsense and shown to be so when the nominator admitted that he had misunderstood WP:CRIN. Did Reyk admit his error and gracefully withdraw? Of course not.

Unfortunately (I think), Bobo was reported to ANI as a result of arguments arising in the Cranston/Whitehead ANIs. I support Bobo who has been provoked by Reyk in particular and to some extent by other editors. In the face of all that has gone before, Reyk joined the ANI with statements like: "I've made an effort to remain completely civil"; "It may be that his (Bobo's) behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist"; "(WP:CRIC) is easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia"; "behavioural issues". He was challenged on this and asked to specify alleged "ownership issues", but he has not been able to answer this challenge because there are no such issues. He later repeats his view that WP:CRIC is "toxic". No one else has said any such thing about us. He has directly insulted everyone associated with that project and he continues to get away with it.

He then decided to attack me and said: "The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you". That is a blatant lie because he knows perfectly well that Lugnuts reported him to ANI last April for that very reason. He then accuses me of "vilifying religion" and triumphantly produces a diff that "proves it". He neatly overlooks the fact that I was angrily responding to an accusation of fabricating sources and the "Old Testament myths" retort was minor in comparison to a lie like that. This is a good example of Reyk twisting the facts and trying to mislead readers who don't take the time to look at the link and see the real facts of the case.

According to you, Reyk is "a long-term editor who as far as I can see has done nothing but disagree with a number of issues regarding notability". He has antagonised at least five truly long-term editors as described above. Reyk joined the site in 2005, not long after I did, and has made only 20k edits. I have made 85k edits and I wouldn't say that is a lot over 12 years. The-Pope joined in 2006 (77k edits). Lugnuts joined 2006 (a whopping 660k edits). Bobo joined 2004 (113k edits). Dweller joined 2005 (50k edits). Bobo and Dweller are admins and I understand Dweller is some kind of senior admin. I think that puts the balance firmly onto the CRIC side of the scale and you need to take on board that we do not harrass people or insist that cricket articles are sacrosanct. Reyk has been disruptive and confrontational in the AfDs as described above. He has not contributed in a positive way and has rejected consensus. You don't have to agree with our views, that being your prerogative, but WP:CRIC is not a "toxic" project and it does not oppose consensus. There is as yet no certainty in the GNG v SSG issue, as you have said yourself. If and when it is ever resolved, we will comply with it. It is people like Reyk who do not comply.

That's all I have to say. If the admins will take no action against the likes of Reyk then so be it. I will go back to creating articles and building the encyclopaedia. Thanks for your time, assuming you have read all of this message, and I hope you accept my explanation of events and accept that, like my colleagues in CRIC (admins and editors alike), I am here for the benefit of the encyclopaedia and its readers. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: I will have no part in this conversation other than to say that I support Jack in every action as a friend and I can only apologize for my personal actions, provoked in part to my numerous current personal life frustrations, none of which is related to the encyclopedia. I, like others, am here to build an encyclopedia and will take no further part if simple, easy to understand criteria, regardless of silly little childish issues, are constantly disrespected. The hypocrisy of the matter is clear to see.

Like my friend, I refuse to be provoked into further interaction, and would rather not contribute to an encyclopedia whose members display such disgusting and unwarranted hypocrisy. Bobo. 23:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I will have to take a while to read this, which is probably not going to be today as real life is getting in the way. I promise that I will get back to you shortly. Even without reading it though, I would point out that at no time have I accused anyone of not being here for the benefit of readers (which you did do to Reyk - NOTHERE) and have not accused CRIC of being toxic. I was merely pointing out that abusive comments such as you made to Reyk are personal attacks, and they need to stop. I don't think anyone could argue with that, and I also think that you realise it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BK. That is fine, all of it. I hope your RL problems are soon resolved. Take your time. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD disruptions.

Moot, the user has been indef blocked. So I will convert this to a thank you for all your work! Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Report of user 8Dodo8

Hello! The user user continues to vandalize the CSA Steaua București (football) page even after you increased its protection level. He asked one of his administrator friends to vandalize the page for him. Please return the page to its proper version, my last edit on the page, the edit made just before you increased its protection level. Thank you! We're trying to create a page for our club and this guy, 8Dodo8, is a supporter of a rival club. He has been vandalising our page for weeks now. - TPTB (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#FC Steaua București - CSA Steaua București (football). I explained the situation there. CSA does NOT own the honours of FCSB, only the name of Steaua. Stop with that propaganda, there is proof in the UEFA and FRF links.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

Thanks for closing this. Would you mind explaining how you arrived at "delete and redirect". I don't see a consensus to redirect, and there was nothing in the history that needed deletion if there was a consensus to redirect. I think it would be better to leave it as a red link and let editors decide boldly on their own discretion whether or not a redirect is needed. As it stands, if someone decides to create one on their own, I'd take it to RfD because of the reasons I mentioned at the AfD, but it would feel a bit foolish to do so if there was actually a consensus at the AfD to redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are a couple of comments that suggest a redirect might be worthwhile; quite often when you have "redirect" and "delete" comments and the latter aren't overwhelming, then D&R is a useful compromise. It's fine if you want to RfD it, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Went ahead and did it. Sorry for the Twinkle notification below! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Since you had some involvement with the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, first of all thank you for reviewing my page El Dounya Helwa – Live. I saw that you have redirected it to Nancy Ajram discography. The article was about an official live album by the singer and I provided reliable sources to it. I have read the policy and still don't understand why it has been redirected. Can you please return it back as an article and I will fix it to fit Wikipedia policy? Thank you so much. (NAOFC (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC))

IP you recently blocked (120.17.117.112) is now editing as 120.17.239.226

This IP is editing now under 120.17.239.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Could you please perform a block for WP:EVASION? Thanks. 220.145.107.136 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Parker (darts player)

After seeing the report at AN/I, I wound up reverting the move and redirecting Ryan Meikle (darts player) to our existing Ryan Meikle article. They're two different players. I've now nominated the Parker article for deletion - would have PRODded but it had already been dePRODded and subsequently AfDed a first time ... by the same editor who made the move. In view of his name (already noted on the article and on his talk page) and his and several Leeds IPs' history at the article, I suspect he may have personal reasons for wanting the article gone, which wouldn't excuse all his actions, but if you can see it that way, maybe you could give him some kindly admin talk? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Is there a reason you placed a 3RR warning on my talk page for edits at Sean Hannity but ignored the other editor's 4 reverts in that same article within 24 hours? If not, warn the other editor or remove your warning from my talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Very simply because some of your reasoning was faulty. As the other editor said in an edit summary " your objection was "it wasn't in the Washington Post". well, it was, and that's a reliable source". I am far more inclined to be lenient to editors that explain their edits as opposed to "I don't agree". Still, we've managed to get past that issue without any blocks, so all is good. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not claim it was "not in the Washington Post." Not in my edit summaries or in the section I opened on the article's talk page where I explained my objection clearly including the phrase "from the Washington Post's style section" and titling it "Marc Fisher in the Washington Post". My edit summary challenged our attribution of Marc Fisher's claims, which were published in the Washington Post, to their news division or editorial board. Unless we are prepared to state that Benjamin Franklin was "a lot more honest than most self-help writers’'' and that "Lots of memorable moments occur in the dining room" are also positions of the Washington Post this is a misattribution. Ideally you will rectify this. Minimally I would appreciate you correcting the misinterpretation of my position and acknowledging that "object to reasoning behind edit" is not a valid 3RR exemption by removing your warning from my talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful

Hi Black Kite. Ivar the Boneful has made several edits after your request for retraction of the sock aspersions against me, but he has not responded at ANI. Thank you. Dr. K. 07:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If you wanted me to respond at ANI, why didn't you tag me there? You did so above, so it's clearly within your capabilities. Or should I place ANI on my watchlist and filter through hundreds of edits per day? Are your feelings really that fragile that you're going to try and get me blocked for ignoring an imaginary ultimatum that you didn't even bother to tell me about? I think you need to grower a thicker skin and get on with your life. My statements at ANI speak for themselves and I don't have anything further to add there unless there is some new revelation that comes to light. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You started the ANI complaint about another editor - that means that your behaviour is also under scrutiny. If you can't be bothered to keep track of what is being discussed at a thread that you started, you can hardly blame anyone else. Meanwhile, if you "don't have anything to add", can I assume that you are not going to strike your unsubstantiated (and frankly ludicrous) allegations of sockpuppetry? Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why I would? One of the purposes of ANI is to bring suspicious and/or deceptive behaviour to the attention of other editors. If you want to defend Dr.K.'s reputation, you should point out why I am mistaken rather than engaging in this weird passive-aggressive attempt at bullying. If you're so concerned about "unsubstantiated allegations", why haven't you asked Dr.K. to withdraw their implication that I was a sockpuppet? It doesn't reflect well on you as an admin to have one standard for your buddies and another for everyone else. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You would, because they're clearly against policy (and obviously false). Meanwhile, Dr.K said that the IP was probably a sock, although he didn't say of who. Indeed, it would be illogical to claim it was you since you hadn't actually edited the article at that point! Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. @Ivar the Boneful: If you wanted me to respond at ANI, why didn't you tag me there? You responded at ANI quite well without being "tagged" or prompted when you felt that you needed to cast these baseless aspersions against me by name, and in multiple sentences, all of them groundless and completely void of clue. I never thought that after such public display of aspersions against me in that highly-visible forum, you would suddenly abandon ANI and you wouldn't care what the response was. I even gave you the courtesy of a response at ANI explaining my mention of the IP sock. Now that Black Kite and RickinBaltimore warned you about your aspersions against me, and Black Kite told you to retract them, suddenly you abandoned the ANI thread. This is simply not how it works. Your aspersions are patently false, uncivil, and violations of WP:NPA. Editors can't just go around in this collaborative project trying to smear the reputation of lonstanding editors by such clueless means. That would be disruptive to the project. An admin gave you a warning at ANI to retract your baseless aspersions. That warning is still there and you need to respond to it. I came to tell Black Kite here that you were not in compliance with his request at ANI while also pinging you so that you were aware and be given another chance to retract these unfounded aspersions against me. The ball is clearly in your court now. Dr. K. 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: I think you need to grower sic a thicker skin and get on with your life. I don't think I have to grow anything. Why don't you grow some backbone, show some intellectual honesty in the process, and admit your error? Dr. K. 00:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)