User talk:Black Kite

“Libraries gave us power" Manic Street Preachers

Black Kite
Hi, I'm an administrator here, and have been since 2007. I'll try to answer any questions here as soon as I can, though I do have periods where I'm not available. For admins: if you think I've done something really f***ing stupid and I don't respond to a question about it, please feel free to reverse it ... we can work it out later on.

For Talk Page Archives, click here.

If you email me via Wikipedia, please leave me a note here (unless there's a good reason you do not want that fact to be public). I do check my Wikipedia email fairly regularly, but not that regularly.

WP:BLPCAT violation again on religious converstion pages

Can you please take a look at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism? Last time, several entried were removed before the article was protected. Now another editor doing the same like a previous blocked sock[1] and [2]. Thanks. --Bringtar (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close AFD

This article's Mister Sister (film) AFD here has been listed for deletion three times now, and the third list has gone beyond 7 days. I think that's it's time to close it.Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE current case Maneesh

Bearing in mind your recent disgraceful comments at RSN [3] which, you may remember, I objected to at the time, [4] [5] my view is that you should recuse yourself from anything to do with gender issues, and in particular, the current AE discussion about Maneesh. As you say, Wikipedia is meant to be an inclusive, collaborative editing environment and anyone who attacks editors as ‘culture warriors’ is degrading that environment. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The environment has been degraded. An admin observing that a topic area is rife with misconduct can't be construed as involvement, as it's reasonably a part of the administrative role. Firefangledfeathers 13:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an admin ‘observing that a topic area is rife with misconduct’. It was an admin attacking someone who had raised a reasonable query about the reliability of a publication, on the grounds of the perceived political orientation of the questioner. The discussion had been about the publication, until Black Kite got involved. It was BK who degraded the environment in that discussion. In the second diff, BK makes another unevidenced personal attack on the questioner, and threatens to topic-ban them. The Wikipedia system for evaluating the reliability of publications cannot operate if anyone who raises a reasonable question risks being threatened with a topic ban, particularly where, as in this case, the threat is based on a political (in the broadest sense) dispute. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet6970, your opinion that the mover of that RSN discussion was actually raising a reasonable query about the reliability of a publication, and that the discussion from the beginning had been about the publication, is your personal opinion and nothing more. In my view, the discussion was tendentious and laden with bias right from the mover's opening statement - and I believe there is more support of that perception from comments by editors within the discussion itself than for your view that, essentially, everything was fine until BK messed it up. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are free to question the motives of editors and warn that topic-bans are an option. You might disagree with those admin actions, but they aren't reasons to recuse. Firefangledfeathers 15:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Newimpartial: Once again, we disagree. And once again, we’re in danger of drifting off the point. The point I’m trying to make is that an admin who has aggressively expressed partisanship over a particular issue should not be adjudicating on any matter in that area.

To Firefangledfeathers: BK was not questioning the motives of editors, or giving a warning. They were assuming an illegitimate motive, without providing any evidence, and making a threat.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are reading the same text and drawing different conclusions. I think it's unlikely that either of us is going to convince the other; at least, I don't believe I could do so without repeating arguments, which is usually a sign that I should step away from the discussion. Please do not take my lack of response as agreement with any of your present or future points here. Firefangledfeathers 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McCullough/Ayurveda

Black Kite, you implemented an arbitration enforcement remedy at Talk:Ayurveda in which comments that solely complain about "quackery" without any policy basis are removed without comment. I am wondering if a similar remedy might help at Talk:Peter A. McCullough, which has experienced months of comments that dispute "misinformation", which is well-sourced, but provide no PAG reasoning for doing so. There have been five such comments posted in the last week.

If you'd prefer, I think this request could reasonably be posted at AE, where other admins can discuss the idea. Either way, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it's reasonable or if there are better methods to alleviating the disruption. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]