Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Yu klose and WP:COMPETENCE

Yu klose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately I have to bring this user here. He is a Japanese editor who likes to come through and update the Asia League Ice Hockey rosters. The problem is, communication is basically impossible without a translator and he frequently introduces issues in the article, makes errors, messes them up, and without several warnings and a translator, won't provide any sources for his edits. The one time he did provide a source it didn't say anything to support what he wanted it to support. He does seem to get information ahead of official league updates. I'm not sure where he gets it as he won't source it. Recently he introduced issues on High1 by adding several foreign imports to the roster [1] but failing to remove ones which had left the team. Per league regulations they can only have 3, and he'd listed 5. Several days later when the team finally updated its roster on their website I was able to clean it up. However at that time, neither the league (in English or Japanese) nor team website had this information. Attempts to communicate with him went unanswered. Today he just moved all the foreign players on China Dragon to the past import player section, but only removed a single one from active roster, thus leaving several players as both active and past players at the same time [2]. In the past he's introduced incorrect citizenship about players like this: [3], unlike Japan, Korea didn't have dual citizenship laws at the time, and it was impossible for this player to be a dual citizen (dual citizenship was only allowed until 18 at which point they had to declare one or default to Korean). He tried to introduce a source , but of course it didn't call him a Korean citizen. It called him an American one. We'd had similar issues over some Japanese players that have dual Canadian/Japanese citizenship, you can see that outlined on his talk page, I had to bring in a translator for that one. While I appreciate his work in updating the rosters, trying to deal with him as become a burden and a time sink trying to verify the things he's doing and correcting mistakes he's making. His inability to communicate makes the task even more difficult, so I'm asking he either be blocked or banned as it seems he's not able to effectively work with this community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gotta give this another time stamp. If no one is saying anything, can I assume that means no one here objects to my assessment? Is there an admin here willing to handle this?--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That is emphatically NOT a safe assumption to make. It generally means that no one believes the situation is particularly urgent. Often people are just waiting for further developments. This guy is on people's radars, and if this problem continues, please bring it back here, but right now it just seems like there are some communication deficiencies, but it seems to still be moving towards some sort of progress at the talk page. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What progress? This has been going on for 2 years. There is in fact zero progress being made on the talk page. Look at the time stamps. I've made 3 attempts to communicate with him in the last 2 weeks, and he's come back to edit, but not respond. He's not a high volume editor, so his error to good edit ratio is far too high. The last time he responded on his talk page was over 2 years ago--Crossmr (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, what's the proposal? If his edits aren't a net positive then it would seem an indef block would be appropriate. Otherwise, are we talking about a shot across the bow in the form of a shorter block, or a topic ban from specific areas? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A short block would be the equivalent of no block unless there is a roster change pending for him, as he does little other editing. His last 50 edits take us back 1 year. But in that time we've had a citizenship debate he couldn't communicate over/understand at all, and he's introduced several roster issues in that time because of his unwillingness to cite reliable sources at the time of making the edits. At least during the season the league keeps on top of the roster pages, but off season they don't touch them, so unless he actually works for the league or something, I don't see where he's getting this info. He only made 29 edits in 2010 so that's why there wasn't much talk generated from that year. As I specified above either an indef block/ban (likely to amount to the same thing for him) or a clear ultimatum delivered to him (with the help of a translator) that he has to start paying attention to the messages on his talk page and respond or be blocked indefinitely. Even if he can't understand my messages, I do link the articles I'm talking to him about, or name in the subject, so he's got to know that I'm talking to him about it, and by now he should realize I'm not sending him a message congratulating him and that he should try and find someway to discuss it with me or stop.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. He hasn't written anything in 2 years. On the other hand, there's been basically no activity at all on his talk page for the last two years except in the last week and a half, so that's not particularly damning. The point still stands, however; people are just waiting and watching to see what happens next. A lack of response doesn't mean you're right, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that nobody really has anything to add either way. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with him both in February and March of this year. Oda Mari also translated for me in March, and that got no response from him either. Again, look at the time stamps.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Filter 390

Resolved

 – Taken care of by an admin via talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, could an admin or edit filter manager put edit filter 390 back in service, please? Seems the vandal it was meant for is back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Leandrod

Leandrod (talk · contribs) was just released from a block for making pointless edits against MOS. Previous recent discussion of this matter took place at two ANI threads here and here. After his block expired, he has gone right back to making the exact same type of edits, all without any discussion whatsoever. He needs to be reblocked. N419BH 03:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks bad, doesn't it? I don't see how we're going to get his attention unless he's blocked until such time as he starts talking. VanIsaac_WS 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to some diffs since his last block ended? VanIsaac_WS 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look through recent edits, and can't figure out which ones contravene guidelines. If the new edits are MOS related, but are correct, then I don't see a need for further blocking. However, these changes are very nitty-gritty, so maybe the "incorrectness" is more readily apparent to those intimately familiar with all of the nooks and crannies of the MOS; if so, please point out which edits are a problem. If they are consistent with previous problems, I would agree that a block is in order. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The following are four examples of him changing dates and page numbers from the accepted 1991-1997 format to the unconventional and confusing 1991-97 format, and page numbers from 221-253 to 221-53: [4] [5] [6] [7]. N419BH 16:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As part of a previous ANI thread I decided to block Leandrod for 48 hours. This was on the theory that a short block was needed to get his attention. If you observe his lack of any response at User talk:Leandrod#September 2011 you will probably conclude that a 48-hour block did not make any impression. If he had filed a request for unblock it would have given an opportunity for him to explain his thinking. We get no response whatsoever. Though it might seem drastic, I suggest that an indef block is the right answer now. A previous case (for anyone who can remember so far back) is User:Mac, who made strange edits over a long period, and would not discuss anything. Mac was finally indef blocked in 2008 after about a zillion complaints. Leandrod is a person who has made 20,000 edits many of which are wrong-headed, and will not discuss. What he has in common with User:Mac is that they both appeared to be editing in good faith, but were seriously misguided as to what constitutes a useful edit. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the key point of the User:Mac case: editors are expected to *communicate* when people express concerns to them about their edits. The point is not so much that the edits are wrong or that they are usually reverted (both of which are true in this case), but that the editor will not respond to the concerns expressed to them and offer their rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• User Indef Blocked with an explanation that the block was mainly about the user's refusal to communicate and answer questions about their editing. If they start to do so, they can be unblocked by any admin at any time without conferring with me. --Jayron32 17:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, this discussion has not been linked on the user's Talk page. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've left Leandrod a link to the new discussion here. I'm watching his talk page in case he makes an answer which might be copied here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block and of course we can reconsider if and when the user communicates with someone. --John (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam-only accounts

Two accounts, user:ssky and user:ssky2 have been used exclusively for spam to create the articles Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji, and to create links to these articles in other articles. Both articles are patent self-promotion by these users, who, judging from their user names, are close to the subject of the articles. The former article has already been speedy deleted as spam, and the second has an AfD in progress. Furthermore, the second article was created the same day that it had been speedy deleted under a slightly different spelling, Swami Buddhapuri Ji, and the accounts were started with the obvious purpose of circumventing that deletion. Neither article contains anything of encyclopedic value. The accounts are two years old, and flew under the radar until one of them started adding links to other articles yesterday. Neither account has ever made a constructive edit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your allegations. Since both the articles Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji were related so I had interlinked them. You can't judge that an article is self promotion by merely looking at their user name. I was about to add more reliable source to Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga but it has been deleted without even giving me some time. Swami Buddhapuri Ji was created in 2009 and at that time I was a first time writer on wikipedia so I understand that an article shouldn't have been copied from a website, due to which it was deleted. The actual name of the person in question is Swami Budhpuri Ji and the page has plenty of verifiable references. Ssky (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2011 (GMT +5.30)

These look to be single purpose accounts, not to mention WP:SOCK. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Stupid question Has any one actually tried to explain policy to these accounts? I frankly dislike how Dominus has handles these users, calling them "Perps" at FTN and and gernally assuming bad faith. I see good faith attempts with general ignorance on how Wikipedia works. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have given them the benefit of a doubt if they had made any constructive edits during their two-year history. The fact that all of their edits were promotion related, as well as the fact that they resurrected a freshly deleted article under a slightly different name convinced me that the only reason they were here on WP was to promote the Swami in question, and that there was little hope of them becoming constructive editors. In other words, the only thing they have done on WP in two years was to use it for their own purposes.

As for ignorance, I find that a poor defense- they knew enough to recreate the deleted article, and the way they sourced that article makes it clear that they were very familiar with sourcing policies two years ago- the sources were added an hour and a half after the article was recreated. They clearly knew that they were using WP for their own promotional purposes- that was the only reason they came here in the first place. Whether they knew that this was against WP policy is irrelevant, and a very poor defense.

I am giving them the benefit of the doubt as far as SOCKing is concerned. I haven't seen any evidence of deceptive SOCK type behaviour. I can't figure out exactly why there are two accounts, but evasion and deception clearly have nothing to do with it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably uncharitable to pursue the SOCK except as a style issue. I'll put a message on the accounts letting them know about the alternate account userpage template. The WP:SPA thing is a bit more worrying, however. For two years, they've done absolutely nothing except edit on this subject. With a username reminiscent of the subject matter, and a resurrection under a different spelling, I'm not encouraged. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Probable sock

Bcsadhak (talk · contribs) - only action was to remove a template pointing out the page is a copyvio of http://www.shabadsuratsangam.org/?page_id=32 (The page contains exact quotes and close paraphrasing, with occasional changes I suspect are just from people removing unsupported claims) Not at all suspicious! 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• There appear to be several participants in the AfD that are either accounts created today (eg Svechu (talk · contribs) and the account above) or IPs that have made their first edits to WP today. No comment. Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If it helps, anything from BT is probably me. BT uses dynamic IPs, which I can do little about. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Flagstaff1

Could I please ask to have an admin look at user Flagstaff1? It's a new account from today, the editor claims that he has been watching the actions of the alleged plagiarist Grutness for a long time, the editor knows his way around Wikipedia policy and I thus conclude that this is a sock puppet account. The editor's behaviour is uncivil (see the previous diff and this example. His allegations of plagiarism on my part are not what drives me to bring this up, as I hardly ever adopt sentences from NZETC word for word, and where I do, I point out that the source is PD (e.g. here). For the record, I have previously enquired with Gadfium how to react to this editor; he advised that I could ask for action here. Schwede66 09:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He's made vague accusations and was extremely impolite, was warned, and acknowledged the warning. We'll see what happens from here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be quick to jump to the conclusion that people are sockpuppets. Unless you have undeniable evidence, making those claims is very counter-productive. It's entirely possible for a user to edit as an IP editor or read our policies before creating an account. m.o.p 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he really jumped to a conclusion there. He merely asked that an admin check it out because it doesn't pass the smell test. Right now, this seems to be in wait-and-see mode, and that's probably a good place to be for now. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

People are getting pretty lenient around here. I would probably have blocked this on sight as a single-purpose harassment account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite. When a new account states that its owner has been around Wikipedia for long enough to understand policy, said new account is presumably aware of the dim view taken of editors whose only edits are attacks on other contributors. No further edits since then, so this may have just been a throwaway account, but if it happens again a block is in order. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Email address in an edit summary - bad practice?

There are two accounts active this morning, Megan.pat-bach (talk · contribs) and Antpb (talk · contribs), making edits related to the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority. They apparently have a conflict of interest, but that's not the issue. The problem is that they're embedding a contact email into every edit summary.

Can I get a second opinion on whether that's a bad idea? I'm a little too close to the situation because I mass-reverted Megan's edits for leaving redlinks in articles, before I looked closer at the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway and realized it should be moved (and fixed Megan's edits). So, I'd really like it to be an uninvolved admin making the call on this one. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. It's not part of the article. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea, especially for someone with an apparent conflict of interest. Could be seen as advertising. Their edits are visible in the history. If it is so important to link them to so and so, make it prominent on their userpage that this account is the official spokesaccount of so and so and have the email there. Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that it could be perceived as advertising in this context is nonsensical. The editor is clearly just trying to disclose her identity and relationship to the subject: [8]. It's perhaps a little too much detail for an edit summary, and it may expose the editor to spam, but it's not in any way harmful to the project or abusive of our resources. A new editor was bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of a concealed conflict of interest, and you're waggling your finger about imagined "advertising" and self-aggrandizement. Just because a newbie is associated with a corporation doesn't mean that we need to assume (or suggest) the worst.

By all means, encourage this editor to put contact and identity information (as appropriate) on her user page, and invite her to use article talk pages for anything that's likely to be contentious. Advise her that most Wikipedia editors tend to communication through their user talk pages for day-to-day matters, rather than via email. It may also be a good idea to encourage her to try to separate minor copyediting from substantial revision, just to make it easier to see the 'meat' of each edit (and, hopefully, to avoid situations where C.Fred might need or want to revert all the changes, good and bad). So far, though, there isn't really anything to complain about with her editing, and there's no reason to be snippy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh believe me, if I thought that it was blatant advertising and self aggrandizement they'd already be blocked. Its pretty clear that they were editing in good faith. C Fred asked for opinion and I gave it. I apologize if I came off as brusque, though. Syrthiss (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if that's considered bad practice; I didn't know. We were only trying to provide a way for you to verify that the information is accurate and comes from a verified source. You can probably see that the edits were made because of the organization's recent name change. It was done in an effort to update completed expressway exits, ramps, and name/logo information. I hope that helps to clarify the situation! C.Fred (talk · contribs) Antpb (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But primary sources really are not always reliable sources. Editing from a position of "power" undermines the WP:CONSENSUS aspect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia ever treated the representative of a company as being in a position of 'power'? (Yes, I know you linked to COI under that, but still the implication is distasteful and off the mark.) Being openly associated with an article topic in any way is an invitation to more scrutiny and (usually, and sometimes unfairly and unfortunately) harsher treatment; it carries no authority on the project whatsoever.

A company representative should be treated like any other subject matter expert—as long as they endeavour to follow the spirit of Wikipedia's core policies, we should welcome and encourage their participation. While their status does not obviate their need to employ reliable sources or to write from a neutral point of view, it should make us at least a little more reluctant to dismiss their input out of hand. I will note that in this case, the editor in question has been nothing but cooperative, and has politely sought to understand our policies and practices. In response, we have offered dark mutterings about advertising, abuse of power, and undermining consensus. And really—while there are limits (appropriately and deservedly) on the use of primary sources on Wikipedia, it's overkill to demand secondary and tertiary sources for a simple factual matter like "The Second Avenue exit on the Wikipedia Valley Tollroad has been completed and is now open to traffic." Get a grip, people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they are not always reliable sources. In the case of a company's name change and completion of construction projects, how should one proceed to update and verify that information? --Antpb (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For straightforward factual matters (company name/logo change, construction schedules, new exits/lanes open, etc.) it will usually suffice to link to the relevant announcement or press release on the tollway's web site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go ahead and look for the appropriate materials to link to and resubmit edits with that in mind. Also, thanks for understanding my position, wasn't looking to cause any problems, just trying to update information. I appreciate it! --Antpb (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• (sorry that my overgeneralization was supposed to just that ... general ... and not specifically focused ... it was not intended to denigrate the editor(s) in question) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is mostly bad practice for two reasons. One, edit summaries go into change feeds which are scraped by bots for email information. If you want your email address added to more spam lists, by all means add it in plaintext to a wikipedia edit. Two, the email address clutters up the change list. The summary should provide helpful information about a change so that someone can tell at a glance what has been altered in a page. Sources for into can go there, but are only sparingly (e.g. "removed claim about XYZ because of J. Doe et al. 2009"). An email address is relatively low content. I don't think it constitutes advertising or anything nefarious. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades' comments. (This seems to happen reasonably often. I'll have to get him to run for some committee or other.) I also agree that e-mail addresses should not appear in edit summaries (and are probably best avoided altogether in most cases). Antpb, are you familar with the Wikipedia e-mail system where you can link an e-mail address to your account here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User creating redlinks and redirects en masse

I'm experiencing difficulty with an IP editor who is making a large number of edits to biography infoboxes, particularly with regard to changing the wikilinks of placenames to redirect pages or in some cases, redlinks. Here are a few examples: [9] (2 redirects), [10] (3 redirects, 2 of them the same), [11] (1 redirect, 1 redlink), [12] (1 redirect, 1 redlink) etc etc. I've asked him on his talk page, but he just responded with a personal attack [13]. What's next? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I put a couple of comments on civility and joining this conversation on his/her talk page (as well as instructions on signing talk page additions), so hopefully we'll hear from him/her in the near future. Breton, if you see any more similarly destructive edits being made, please post a few more diffs here. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do, much appreciated, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually thought some parts of their edits were valid. In the first example, they added parameters to the info box for place of birth and place of death, which is an improvement over what was there before. The sketchy part of the edit could have been fixed by changing the links to more appropriate ones. Here is a diff showing a way the edit could have been tidied in a less bite-y manner: diff. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I started doing that, but it was very time-consuming given the dozens and dozens of articles affected, and the result to the visual aspect of the page was negligible. You say it's an improvement, but there's no noticeable difference to the page itself. The damage he is doing far outweighs any negligible benefit. Why should people have to trawl around after this guy fixing his bad edits, undoing only the parts of his edits that were damaging? Initially, I did not bite this guy, I was perfectly polite, and he ignored me. This isn't a kindergarten, and I have better things to do than clear up the elementary errors of someone who is meanwhile telling me to screw off. He has clearly ignored this discussion, and he is still making bad edits by the way: [14], [15] etc etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, here [16], you restored his crappy redlink. Was that a mistake? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to wikilink country names and big cities like London as per WP:OVERLINK, and why is the USA the only country that doesn't need a mention in the infobox? London gets "England" tacked on to it like there's any doubt as to where London is, yet Whynot, Mississippi doesn't need a country name? This is the kind of thing this guy is doing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did make one mistake tidying up after the guy. Sorry. I see he is continuing to edit, so I will post another explanation on his talk page. --Dianna (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I fixed the ones I saw. I have no problem with him adding the fields, just everything else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna template him for adding unsourced material. Please continue to watch the user. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This guy is still going [17] and he's adding straight vandalism to his work now [18]. I've been tidying up after this editor all evening. Bored now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Following your provided diff, it's clear to me this editor needs to be restricted, blocked for 72 hours and recent edits reverted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I can now catch up with fixing all the redirects. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Complaint against Redthoreau: Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry

Article: Porter Stansberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Complaint

I removed potentially contentious content sourced to a court document pursuant to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Redthoreau has twice restored this content [19][20] in spite of a warning I placed on his talk page [21]. What is bizarre is that he restored the improper source even though he was aware acceptable sources had been posted on the talk page [22]. Very odd he would intentionally use a source which exposes the Wikimedia Found to unnecessary litigation when he could've just as easily used one of the better sources on talk. Anyway I'm not going to edit war to keep the court filing out when he is Hell bent on including it. If it takes a block to prevent him from re-adding it then so be it. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The material is relevant, worthy of inclusion and sourced to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. If you believe that the SEC is not a WP:Reliable source on their own lawsuit then you are free to challenge their usage. As for WP:BLPPRIMARY it states that court records should not be solely used to "support assertions about a living person." However, the way the SEC source is currently used it does not do that. Nowhere does it definitively call Stansberry a "fraud" or even say he was guilty of anything. The source is only being used to display the stated charges filed against him. Obviously his rebuttal or counter claims could be included as well from reliable sources. Moreover, you also earlier removed the corroborating source about the lawsuit referenced to Brian Deer of The Sunday Times. However, your misplaced bull in a china shop bravado about "blocks" which you have no ability to carry not notwithstanding; you have provided no talk page rationale about why you believe the material violates any Wiki policies. As for additional sources, they are always of course welcome and preferable to the mass deletions you started off with. I haven't had a chance to thoroughly look at the ones mentioned on the talk page, but will try to if you don't beat me to it.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Please do not refactor my posts. This report is about your behavior, not about content. If you want to file a report about the SEC feel free.
2. Your excuse for repeatedly violating WP:BLPPRIMARY is unacceptable. The "worthiness" of an addition is not an excuse to use unacceptable soucing. It doesn't matter if the source alleges fraud or not. BLPPRIMARY is clear:

   Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

(Emph. from original) It says do not. It says assertions. And, note that you did not add secondary sourcing when you re-added the court document. It seems readily apparent that you have no intention of following policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that the original content wasn't an assertion. It was simply a description of the legal dispute. The purpose of the BLPPRIMARY note about court proceedings is that you should not make a claim "X is a murderer", and cite it with a court filing. But "X was charged with murder" seems to be a different animal. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 02:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well at least VanIsaac's logic meter isn't broken. Ah well,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the semantics of assertion for the moment, would you say that sourcing this to an unacceptable reference violates the spirit if not the letter of BLP:

alleged that he "engaged in an ongoing scheme to defraud public investors by disseminating false information in several Internet newsletters", while using the pseudonym Jay McDaniels

– Lionel ^(talk) 02:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the WP:BLPPRIMARY was very carefully written. It talks about using primary sources with caution. That assertions should not be backed by a court filing, and that items with personal details should not be linked. It explicitly does not say that you cannot use these as a source, only that there should be other coverage of a particular incident. It also does not say that you cannot use these primary sources as a citation for a description of the allegations, only that you cannot back an assertion with them. Well, there are several independent sources that talk about this case, and the court filing is only used as a source for details about the allegations. I think this very instance is why the BLPPRIMARY guidelines don't simply say "Court records cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia articles". VanIsaac_WS^contribs 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I posted some acceptable sources for this incident on the talk page ([23]). I'm waiting for one of you two to rise to the occasion and incorporate them into the article, although I guess if you keep going back and forth with this feud I'll just do it myself. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)WP:BLPPRIMARY here is intentionally written in a very broad manner, and I believe means what it says, not what Redthoreau wants it to mean. No court document may be used to support BLP info, period. Not about charges filed, not alleged wrongdoing, not about statements made in court, not even about a person's age and occupation. Court documents are not reliable sources because they have not been vetted by independent, editorial judgment. If there are, as Lionelt says, other sources that say substantially the same thing, use those. Until that point, take out the court citations. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. That's not what BLPPRIMARY says in the slightest. It says that assertions in BLP articles should not be cited with court records. A court filing is absolutely a reliable source about what a person was charged with, because it is the official record of just that fact. The BLPPRIMARY guidelines do not say "Never use court filings", they say that assertions about a subject should not be solely backed by a court filing, which is a principle I wholly believe in. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Who does this Vanisaac guy think he is, using all this thinking and stuff? Ban him!  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually posted a notice over at the BLP board asking for their input on this matter, so let's just cool it down and see if some people with more experience can offer us some perspective. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I flatly dispute any use of a court document in a BLP on the basis that your legal opinion about the meaning of the document is POV. If you took a court document from one American state and gave it to a lawyer in another state, he could not with any confidence render an opinion about the meaning of that document without knowing the laws of that state. This characteristic of requiring a legal opinion to determine their meaning is a characteristic of all court documents irrespective of venue and means that all such opinions about such documents are POV. Please stick to reliable secondary sources for BLP details.Jarhed (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over section heading

Redthoreau: for the moment I'll ignore the fact that you did not "discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread" per WP:TPO, and just ask: why on Earth are you edit warring over a section heading? And at all places ANI? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, both MastCell and I have provided secondary sources on the article talk page which support all the information Redthoreau added. Instead of starting a new subthread, which seems unhelpful and unduly confrontational, why not check those sources, re-add that information with Redthoreau and let this matter drop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean no block?– Lionel ^(talk) 07:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No administrative action seems to be required at this stage :) Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, I agree with you that the court transcripts alone are not appropriate sourcing. On the other hand, this incident clearly can be covered using appropriate sources, some of which I provided on the talk page. I'm disappointed that Redthoreau has kept fighting to insert the legal filings (and changing section headings). I'm also disappointed that you're pushing for a pound of flesh instead of just rewriting the section using the better sources that were handed to you. That suggests that both of you are more interested in fighting rather than building a better article, at least to me. It's entirely possible that an admin will block Redthoreau, and I can't say it would be undeserved, but the whole situation is disappointing all around. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not other sources?

The BLP problems would disappear if sources such as this one were used for the SEC suit. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

More admin eyes needed on Unblock-en-l

Once again, I am posting here to request that more admins subscribe to and respond to requests on the Unblock-en-l mailing list. This list receives unblock requests from editors who have been blocked for misconduct, who are entitled under the blocking policy to appeal their blocks and get a reasonably prompt review and response. A greater portion of the e-mailed requests are from editors or would-be editors who are caught up in rangeblocks or IP blocks. Many of these are newcomers who will conclude that there is something wrong with our claim of "anybody can edit" and wander off for good if they don't hear back from someone reasonably promptly.

At present, just one or two administrators are handling the entire burden of this mailing list (in particular, DeltaQuad has taken on a heroic share of the workload recently). This inevitably means that requests fall through the cracks or are delayed in being answered. As I've said before, I think it's extremely important that we have more admins participating in this list.

If anyone can think of somewhere useful to cross-post this for greater attention, please feel free. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How does one subscribe, Brad? --John (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like here, best I can tell. Could someone please confirm? — Satori Son 01:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to see what I can do to help. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Signed up. I am ashamed that I have been an admin for 5 years without knowing of the existence of this mailing list. --John (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also just joined the list. LadyofShalott 03:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NYB, I have an intro letter for all of you if you can email me (deltaquadwikigmail.com) with the subject exactly "request intro unblock" you should get an Automatic reply with my letter. This contains some info about the list for you. Please do not use the email this user, it sends the email to wiki@wikimedia.org. Thanks guys, -- DQ (t) (e) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks DQ! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, the first request I handled was from an IP that I had blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing for an AfD

BabbaQ (talk · contribs) has been clearly canvassing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack. He created the article so therefore has a vested interest to keep. He wiped my recent warnings for canvassing off his talk page [24]. and gave some response here [25]. clearly this is a pattern of selective notification of users known to vote keep. the message is neutral but that's besides the point. "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions "

User:Yaksar has also tried to ask a reason for this selective notification with little success [26].

Evidence of selective notification:

• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

it is no surprise that 2 of the users contacted have turned up and !voted keep.

BabbaQ has a history of trying to sway AfDs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BabbaQ/Archive

LibStar (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to WP Administration LibStar has made false accusations about my voting record. On multiple pages LibStar is stating that I usually !vote Keep. Please check my voting record, I have not voted in any AfDs since this accusation. I have voted in 30 AfDs. I have voted 13 Keep, 14 Delete, 1 Merge/delete and 2 Redirect. Please put LibStar on notice for false accusations and harassment as he spreading this false statement "this !vote was canvassed given that Ryan.germany !votes keep at almost every AfD." about me. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Without weighing judgement one way or another on the CANVASS question: man, I think there will be more "notes to the closing admin" in this AFD than there will be votes... either way (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• comment the idea of wasting your time canvassing to get this complete not encyclopedic trivia kept is just amazing. In twelve months this article will be only seem by robots - it a one day news story - AFD here should be renamed Do you like it discussion - WP:DYLID - Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not really an issue in this AFD but I never give much weight to the "nobody will notice it" argument. LibStar saw it and he's not a bot. The fact that attempts are made to get an article deleted demonstrates that an article has been noticed. A point I made in this AFD early in my wiki "career". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• My point was more directed at the news-ness of the article and its limited notability. It can be written in a single sentence and will not require any expansion, perhaps a conviction addition in about six months - when the suspects are nor convicted of terrorism the title will seem a bit incorrect. - At most its a line in a parent article. Please note, I myself have made edits to improve the article even though I don't support it as a stand alone article on en wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have asked him on his talk page how he came to choose these particular editors to notify. I'd like to wait until we hear from him before doing anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Its perfectly OK to notify users of an AfD as per one of the first paragrpahs inn the Canvassing page. If some users percieve it as Canvassing I do apologize, but it is how they percieve it. But this in my opinion seems like an overreaction by a few users that are of an strong delete opinion. Off2riorobs, comment is a perfect example, how can we tell that this will be a "one day news story" that is pure speculations as three of the men will be further prosecuted for these events. I dont have a crystal ball. --BabbaQ (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Also I have to say that its quite strange that Libstar brings this up, a user that answer with a "how can you !vote like that,please change your opinion" kind of argument to every single keep !Vote that is recieved on his AfDs, this is one good example. It always gives me the impression that Libstar wants people to change their opinions to his, and its not only me that think its inappropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My edit is irrelevant to this discussion and an attempt to sidetrack this ANI. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • • User:Yaksar has also tried to ask a reason for this selective notification with little success - Is wrong I have answered your questions it only took a few days, here. Also just because I dont agree with you Libstar doesnt make my opinions wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ, you didn't answer the question Floquenbeam asked you, which is critical to determining the difference between neutral notification and canvassing. Again: what criteria did you use to select those specific people to "notify"? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ, we are not discussing the notability of the article here, we are discussing your behavior specifically why you contacted a select bunch of people? your avoidance of this key question is noted. trying to pretend you did nothing wrong, only emphasizes to me the willingness to breach WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if this were a canvassing violation, is there any claim that BabbaQ should know better and is doing this repeatedly over time despite being asked to stop? Because if not, the most you could expect is that someone would caution them to be more careful in the future. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All I could find was a mild warning in March[34]. On the other hand, in May he was twice blocked for using sockpuppets which gave him support in debates. While that is not the same as canvassing (where you can only hope that the others will agree with you, instead of the certainty you have with socks), it is another indication of being inclined to sway discussions by improper means. Fram (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there was canvassing going on here, yes, the expectation would be that he no longer does it in the future. However, it still impacted this AFD if it did occur, so the continuation/outcome of the AFD would need to be examined. either way (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have said I am apologizing if it was percieved as Canvassing. Now I know how to handle it in the future. However I still stand by that users can make their own decisions on AfDs even if notified by a user or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So you would canvass and commit fraud off wiki for consensus making decisions? Or because this is just a website, do you think it is acceptable? Either way, it has been whitewashed on the discussion page regardless of your canvassing. Colofac (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note to BabbaQ You might want to reread WP:CANVASS. There are four parts to determining if canvassing has occured. Scale, Message, Audience, and Transparency. You appropriately handled scale, message, and transparency; but it is the audience that is in question. You have been repeatedly asked about how you chose your audience. Please simply clarify how you picked your audience without the continued claim of innocence. WP:CANVASS contains more than just a single line. Infact, had you read the "This page in a nutshell", you would've seen "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." (emphasis mine). That quote comes before the line you continue to quote us. Please clarify how you chose your audience.--v/r - TP 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have. To the best of my ability.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think it's time to accept that user:BabbaQ approached people based on their voting history in a vain attempt to keep his article about a non event (that should have been csd'd) from being deleted. As a side point, when is the discussion due to end? I think the outcome is clear. Colofac (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems more like your personal opinion about the article then true facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• There are only a few possibilities I can see (let me know if there are more I haven't thought of).

1. BabbaQ notified these editors because they previously had something to do with this article. This would be either not canvassing, or canvassing, depending on how confident he was in what their opinion would be.
2. BabbaQ notified these editors because he has interacted with them on other articles before ("friends", if you will), and was looking for some additional input from people he knew. This would be fairly significant canvassing, but with a large enough dose of AGF, I can see how it might not be intentional deception, and would be worthy of a "don't do that again".
3. BabbaQ notified these editors because he had seen their typical AFD positions, and knew they generally voted "keep". This would not only be canvassing, but could really only be considered intentionally deceptive canvassing. I do not believe people should get a warning the first time they do something that they already know is wrong. Especially if there is a previous history of deception during discussions. Warnings are not intended to give someone "one free pass" for intentional deception before being sanctioned.

It is important that BabbaQ provide a believable explanation of how he chose these editors. Further avoidance of this question is going to lead me to assume the third possibility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Hi Floquenbeam thanks for contacting, I would say that number 2 is the most accurate one. I contacted "wiki friends" that I actually thought would give their honest opinions about the subject like for example User: Jivesh, I have contacted him/her atleast one time before and it hasnt been a keep decision on that AfD so I was fairly confident for example that, that user would give his/her honest opinions without my notification influencing the decision. And I honestly contacted the other ones with the same assumption that they wouldnt be influenced by the notification. If that is still canvassing I guess I do apologize for the third time in this thread. Simply putting it I contacted only users that I know has good knowledge about notability and non-notability both in a Keep and in a Delete direction. Per AGF if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC with above) BabbaQ said 'However I still stand by that users can make their own decisions on AfDs even if notified by a user or not'. Whether or not this is true, it's completely moot here. If the issue was a non neutral message then it may have some relevence (but the community does not believe it's enough to excuse non neutral messages). But the issue, as several people said before your reply and several people have said after is the people you chose to notify and how you chose them. Are you really going to tell us you can't understand why only notifying people you have reason to believe will !vote in one way will generally indeed skew the !vote in that way even if the people involved 'make their own decision'? Because it's hard to imagine how anyone could not understand that. Of course, if you didn't chose the people who you felt were friendly to your POV, then you need to clarify how you chose who to notify as people said before and after your message. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now answered Floquenbeams question to the best of my ability. I will not respond to the same question asked in different ways for the fifth time in this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In which case I move that the article be immediately deleted and the user indefinitely banned. You haven't answered the question and you have made it clear that you are unwilling to comply with community requests, this I feel, indicates that you are here only to further disrupt the project. Colofac (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a block let alone ban as necessary. While as noted below, I'm still concerned about the fact they don't really seem to understand the problems with their actions and worse they don't seem to be interesting in trying to, they have finally offered an explaination of sorts of how they selected the people they notified and have claimed they weren't influenced by what they expected the people's opinions to be. If we AGF on their statements, I agree with what FQ said before they replied, we should just give a clear cut 'don't do it again' warning. And they have actually stated a while back they won't do it again. As I noted below, if they are unwilling or unable to understand the problem with their actions, this suggests to me we'll be back here sometime in the future but it seems to me it's best if we leave them be for now. (As for what happens to the article, I can't really be bothered looking in to it.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC with Colofac) In case it's not obvious my message was written before your reply to FQ (actually I was planning to write it before I even saw FQ's reply but was busy with other stuff). BTW the reason it was asked so many times is because you failed to respond to it despite repeated requests and several replies on your part until very recently. It is good that you have finally clarified and it is also good that you did not notify people based on what you believed their opinions would be. However I still find it troubling, and I suspect I'm not the only one, about your apparent inability to understand it is nothing to do with the message, but all to do with who you notified. Even more concerning is your apparent inability to understand why selectively notifying people who's opinion is likely to be in one direction is harmful, even if they give their 'honest opinions' without your notification influencing their opinions.

Note that even though you did not intentionally notify people based on what you felt their opinions would be, this is still the reason of concern here as several people have said several times. While we can WP:AGF you do not believe you were influenced in what you believed their opinions would be in who you chose to notify this time, an ad-hoc 'people I know' list is always going to be problematic since there ultimately no way we can verify why these people are on the list. Furthermore, even if you honestly believe the composition of this list was not influenced by how you felt they would !vote, it should hopefully be obvious that without an objective criteria it's easily possible the composition was in fact influenced. Either directly in that even if you were equally friendly with 2 people you would be unintenionally more likely to put someone who's opinions tended to be closer on your own on the list or indirectly in that you would generally be closer with people who's opinions are closer to your own. (And of course if you have a list of people you always notify, it's a fair bet by random chance you're going to be influencing one way or the other.)

These are key parts of the reasons why your behaviour is likely to be seen as canvassing even if that was not the intention. I say this because even though you may have apologised (in some fashion) and said you won't do it again, I think it's far more important you understand why we see your behaviour is unwanted. However, it does seem you aren't really interested in understanding why, which is perhaps my deepest concern in the whole issue, but that isn't really an issue for ANI yet (although one of the reasons it's so concerning is it's likely to result in future visits to ANI) so I guess there's no point for further discussion here.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Article or topic ban for two users

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Deepdish7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Kolokol1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request that the two users be banned from editing the Berezovsky article and its Talk page, or possibly a topic ban that would prohibit editing any other article or Talk page related to Berezovsky.

The Berezovsky article has generated a lot of controversy in the last few weeks. It has been locked twice by User:Black Kite. The battle has been fought in many Wikipedia forums, including the following:

• COIN
• BLPN
• the Berezovsky Talk page
• 3RR archive
• ANI

The article is currently locked and will be until September 28. However, Deepdish and Kolokol continue to battle in some of these other forums during the block. At BLPN and at COIN, several editors have endorsed the idea of an article block (the Berezovsky article and Talk page) at a minimum, and possibly a topic ban that would include anything related to Berezovsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• As a side note: This shows clearly the intention of going on with edit warring after the page protection is lifted.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - both users topic banned from editing any other article or Talk page related to Boris Berezovsky - Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over this, I'm seeing that Deepdish7 has issues editing without warring and avoiding other editing issues, and that Kolokol1 has issues with civility. Perhaps it would be easier to give them both a bit more WP:ROPE so that they can hang themselves and earn indefinite blocks? lifebaka++ 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, give them more rope and they'll hang themselfes. Not a good idea I thinkTMCk (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Any topic ban for Kolokol1 will have to be a broadly construed ban. I would suggest a post-1992 Russia topic ban for him, given that he has declared he has a close connection with Berezovsky but refusing to say what that connection is. Not that I am suggesting he should out himself. As he is very clearly an SPA who is engaging in advocacy across a wide range of articles relating to Russian politics, such a topic ban is warranted. But before we enact such a ban, is it possible for him to get a free photo of Berezovsky with OTRS permission for us to use on the article? lol. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just trying to be objective here... Both editors are essentially newbies based on the number of their edits. Perhaps they need some help and advice. They do appear SPA at this point; none of them edited in a wide range of articles. They accused each other of COI problems, which I think was extremely unhelpful. Deepdish7 was already blocked twice, caught with sockpuppetry and said that he is prepared for a "lifetime struggle" [35]. Kolokol1, on the other hand, did not receive a single warning. No idea if any sanctions would be warranted at this point...Biophys (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider useful long term contributors have to deal with this disruption and it affects them - its worthless to the improvement to the Biography itself - never mind giving them more rope - topic ban them now, their disruption of the BLP is enough already. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the BLP issues, it's pretty obvious that main problems come from Deepdish3 editing, as was already noted by several people at article talk page. Therefore you was right by reverting edits by Deepdish3 here. I am telling as a long term contributor to these subjects.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point out exactly where I broke any BLP rules??? I haven't seen any proven case so far, and was happy for information I inserted to be changed to make everything NPOV and correspond to BLPDeepdish7 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 is not a newbie, he has been a single propose account since over eighteen months. Just ban him from the BLP and get it over with. Off2riorob (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Main issue here is not for how long he edited, but that he started receiving official warnings more than a year ago, e.g. here, at the bottom. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• support topic ban for both narrowly construed this bio- any wider topic ban for either user is a separate topic, perhaps AE?--Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• In case 2 users in question are banned then Off2riorob should also is also banned then from editing anything Berezovsky-related as well as all IP addressed he used for that article, since he was engaged in edit war on Kolokol1's side, and is now engaged in edit war on Paul Klebnikov page Deepdish7 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out, that unlike Kolokol1 I was always happy to discuss my edits and change them to be in accordance with NPOV and BLP. Which makes a big difference between me and Kolokol1, and why I think it would be fairly to block him alone in this case.Deepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Even if you decide to block both of us (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Wikipedia whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-basedDeepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Response by Kolokol1

• If I am banned, I would like to be given a reference to the specific WP policy that I have violated. In the edit war, I was removing information basing on the policy highlighted in the first paragraph of WP:BLP, namely: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have always explained this, specifically referring to this clause. I have never received any warning. My understanding is that the WP:3RR rule is not applicable for WP:BLP. With respect, I do not see how you can ban me for trying to implement your own policy. A ban without explanation and not referenced to a specific violation would be arbitrary and lawless. I will appeal--Kolokol1 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please refer to Wikipedia:ARBRB#Purpose_of_Wikipedia states that you can't use WP for advocacy. You clearly are, and have admitted as much after the issue was brought up with you. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Decorum states no assumptions of bad faith. You have accused me of being in the employ of the Russian government, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I have dealt with such loony accusations in the past, time and time and time again. And then we have Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. Take note. And it goes for both of you. (written by User:Russavia)
    • For the record, I have never admitted engaging in advocacy, as defined by WP:Advocacy. I admitted being connected to the subject, whom I tried to protect from being smeared in an attack page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Russavia, my understanding is that I am being reviewed in the context of the edit war over Berezovsky. If am penalized for advocacy, I would like to see specific instances of advocacy in my edits. With regard to you, I indeed suspect you of advocacy for the the RusGov - both in your posts, and in your campaigning to have me banned. This is not a bad faith on my part, but evidence-based. I am entitled to ask the question, which was perfectly legitimate in view of your impressive body of work promoting various Russian Government agencies, and particularly your correspondence with the Kremlin spokesman, which you disclosed. I am not unaware that your interlocutors in the Kremlin spend millions on PR contractors in the West (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/24/public-relations-russia-georgia-ketchum ), which, of course, does not necessarily mean that you are one of them. I asked the question, you gave the answer, I am satisfied, matter closed. It is now up to admins to consider whether or not this is relevant. I am not accusing you of COI, but detect a strong bias in favor of RusGov, which, as can be easily sourced, is out to get Mr. Berezovsky. If you want me banned on this basis, please file a separate complaint.--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• • You have removed a lot of well-sourced material and violated wikipedia Deletion policy. That alone justifies your ban, as well as having a conflict of interest on this page. I in turn do not have a conflict of interest. If interested admins can see IPs I logged from, one of which was my working address (which should remove any accusations of my connection with Russian government either)Deepdish7 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Question for admins Is it possible to give both editors a WP:DIGWUREN warning, and as written in the remedy, "counselling" on what the problem with their editing is. That is a fair warning to give, and if they decide to hang themselves with that rope, so be it. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding DIGWUREN, I would be happy to have this situation go into arbitration, no problem--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to see very specific references to what is wrong with the editors. Now, Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) has engaded in sockpuppetry (2 times) [36], repeated instances of edit-warring (wich has already earned him two blocks and page protection of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), posting copyvios ([37], [38]), massive BLP violations (see the entire edit history of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), canvassing [39], misrepresentation of sources, incivility, and his only purpose of editing Wikipedia has been "adding negative information" on Berezovsky, which he himself admitted many times and promised to continue no matter what. I haven't seen any disruption of this level from Kolokol1, let alone Off2riorob, who is just trying to enforce our BLP policies. Another relevant ANI thread: [40] Colchicum (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  Support narrowly-construed topic ban (perhaps just the article) for the two editors mentioned in the original post. These two accounts have locked horns and show no intention of disengaging. Not only does a situation like this destabilize an article, it also essentially shuts out any editor who wants to work on the article but doesn't want to enter the morass of angry postings and reversions. Actions not beneficial to WP. The Interior (Talk) 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm getting the feeling it'd be easier to just indef Deepdish, Colchicum. He does not seem to understand our policies, or the reasons for them, and when informed about them seems unwilling to follow them. Even after a few blocks for edit warring, he (as mentioned above) does not seem to understand that he is doing anything wrong and (also as mentioned above) believes that what he is doing is justified, both of which are evident from his currently visible unblock request. He's currently blocked for two weeks for edit warring, but I have a funny feeling that he'll end up reblocked within a few days after it wears off, and since blocks are preventative I think we should just cut out the middle man.

  As for Kolokol1, I worry that he is not necessarily here to build an encyclopedia and he is having trouble discussing content rather than contributors, as well as some other civility issues. There's nothing particularly actionable there yet (except perhaps some discretionary sanctions), but as my obvious subtext implies, I'm pretty sure there will be if nothing changes. Kolokol1, please review our civility policy and other behavioral guidelines. You'll find most of your interactions here a lot smoother if you do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Lifebaka, thank you for your advice. I would be exceedingly grateful for a specific reference of incivility on my part. Will immediately apologize and take it back. I am all for "discussing content rather than contributors", and urge you to read and comment on my content instead of worrying about my motives for being here, which I have stated on numerous occasions: to protect a friend from being unjustly smeared in violation of Wikipedia's own policies. I would like to add to the attention of admins: your colleague yesterday asked me to make a formal declaration that I have no intention to litigate over what I called "potentially libelous" material, which I did (COIN#I declare that I have no intention ). Then, presumably, coming here and trying to find an alternative remedy from an unjust attack must not be punishable by bans, should it?--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I think that accusing me of being an SPA who is employed by the Russian government is one specific reference. Another specific reference is where you have repeated the accusation. Another specific reference is where you have, yet again, repeated the accusation. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Editors_counseled. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Russavia, for god's sake, these references have nothing to do with me! I did not accuse you of anything, I simply noted that because of your self-proclaimed sympathies, your writings, and your declared contacts with the Kremlin PR Chief, you may be working for them, or have COI. A perfectly natural concern under the circumstances. You inquired about my association with Berezovsky on a much lesser grounds, and I did not take offense. But if I offended you, I am sorry. And you are an SPA, or rather DPA, by your own admission, writing almost exclusively on two subjects, as you name suggests - RusGov agencies, and planes. --Kolokol1 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The "general test" for a SPA: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." In other words, SPA has a clearly negative component to it. Even assuming Russavia is mainly interested in Russian and aviation articles doesn't mean he's a SPA, whereas an account like yours, with relatively few edits, and almost exclusively about Berezovsky, seems to fit the definition. Even assuming, as you state, that you are not using the account "improperly", you admit to having an agenda, which seems to be more about protecting Berezovsky than protecting the article or Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Having read everything above, I have some additional comments. Deepdish, on the face of it, is the more obvious editor to sanction. He has a stubborn, obstreperous, although occasionally passive-aggressive, manner. He has been shown previously on ANI not to respond well to attempts by others to counsel him. He has already been blocked and is now blocked again for two weeks. Kolokol is tougher because his demeanor is more professional and because many of his comments, on their face, appear to be more reasonable. However, his admissions at WP:COIN are troubling: "I do not hide having an association with the subject of this BLP, and accept the COI tag, but I do not see why I should be prohibited from editing." He then argues that despite the conflict, based on quoted policy, he should be permitted to edit. However, the policy he quotes should not be considered in a vacuum. This is a highly contentious article, and allowing Kolokol to edit the article in an effort to supposedly protect the subject, will be a nightmare for other editors, as has been shown by recent events. It's one thing for someone to say that an article says "John Doe was convicted of murder", and there's either no source for the assertion or it's simply a hoax, and he was never convicted of murder. That kind of issue is cut-and-dried. However, in the Berezovsky article, the questions as to what are fair assertions and what are not are far more complex and don't lend themselves to such easy review and resolution. It is with these thoughts in mind that I think an article or topic ban is appropriate, not just for Deepdish, but also for Kolokol.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Then please show diffs of specific content edits which are disruptive. Reviewing articles on unfamiliar topics is never easy, but it is not a reason to ban people. Frankly I see no nightmare around as long as Deepdish7 is removed. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The practical effect of banning Deepdish but not banning Kolokol will be a continuation of the battle between Kolokol and Russavia. Russavia, a long-time editor, has opposed some of the actions taken with respect to the Berezovsky article in the last few weeks. To some extent, he has "sided" with Deepdish in the sense that he felt that the wholesale removal of Deepdish's edits was an overreaction and that more pinpointed surgery would have been sufficient. At the same time, Russavia and Kolokol have been trading accusations on the Berezovsky Talk page about themselves, their editing history, and their motives. You can see some of that in the links Russavia provides above. I defended Russavia in that discussion (I had opposed some of his comments about other things in the past) because I felt that labeling Kolokol a SPA was amply justified but labeling Russavia a SPA was not. Yet, Kolokol persisted:

"The impressive body of Russavia's edits does not negate the fact that the bulk of his work on WP, as is evident from his personal page, is devoted to creating information material about Russian Ambassadors, Russian Embassies, Foreign trips of Russian president, the bio of Russian presidential spokeswoman, etc. He may be doing this out of obsession with the Russian government trivia, of course, but prima facie it looks like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry."

and

"Kremlin.Ru, my god! That explains it. So, I guessed right. No, you are no KGB, in the old days they would've called you 'a fellow traveller'. You have as much COI, my friend, as I do. I wonder what letters Deepdish has in his treasure chest."

In my view, this behavior does not militate in favor of permitting Kolokol to edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, what does it have to do with the Berezovsky article? Then I (and probably many others) can't say I disagree with him too much. The bulk of R's work is obviously devoted to just that, nobody would deny this, not even R himself. It does indeed look like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry, though IMO the obsession version is more plausible and I don't care enough about his reasons to bother with speculations. And what's wrong with the second quote? K recognizes that he doesn't think R is an employee of the Russian government anymore, now he thinks R is just like-minded with them (that's what was probably meant by the "fellow traveller" metaphor), which is not news to anybody even remotely familiar with his editing. I'd just say that this need not concern us. R certainly doesn't feel offended by this in the least, otherwise he wouldn't post this information on every corner. Then you have probably noticed that R himself pestered K with automated COI notices [41], while the discussion with K was already under way in another place, and has a long and dramatic history of battleground behavior. But it is not at all clear what topic bans are supposed to do with that. D is now blocked for two weeks, by the way, so do you see the predicted practical effect? Colchicum (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you mean interaction bans... Colchicum (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The practical effect is a world without Deepdish but still with Kolokol, so my comments assume that Deepdish is banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To Bbb23, with all due respect:

• • Your argument that an interested party should be prohibited from contributing to an article under existing WP guidelines because it "will be a nightmare for other editors" destroys the stated WP policy of discouraging litigation by people who have been wronged by unfounded accusations. It leaves them no alternative remedy (see note to the attention of admins in my response to Lifebaka above)
  • Your argument about permissibility of assertion of murder in complex cases like this, frankly, is quite shocking. What about presumption of innocence? The subject has never been convicted, or charged, or even accused of murder except in the writings of Klebnikov, about whom there is a notable record of allegations of anti-semitism, and whose murder claim has been retracted by his own publisher. And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?
  • In regard to Russavia. First, I have absolutely nothing to do with the two references that he provided. I never accused him of being the KGB, my reference to KGB was in response to his own words, "They have already called me KGB, etc". Second, as I explained above, my concerns about his possible COI were well founded, because (a) he is the principal writer of material on Russian Foreign Service and other RussGov agencies on Wikipedia and (b) in his article on Abkhazia - a Georgian province, occupied and annexed by Russia - he simply repeats the Kremlin propaganda line that it is a sovereign state, the notion discounted by the rest of the world. When on top of that he produced a personal letter from the Kremlin Chief of PR, Ms. Natalia Timakova, who actually distributes millions in contracts, every reasonable person would have asked him whether or not he is working on a contract. I assumed good faith, accepted his word and did not report him for COI. If asking such questions could lead to a ban, then why have WP:COIN in the first place? Perhaps my remark about Kremlin.Ru was excessively ironic. And I take the "fellow traveller" back, he is simply a "Russophile", as he calls himself. --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You make three points.

1. There is a remedy. Other editors are perfectly capable of responding to alleged BLP violations.

2. You misunderstood. I compared a hypothetical article with an accusation of murder to the Berezovsky article generally. I am not addressing any specific accusations against Berezovsky.

3. My comments about you and Russavia have more to do with what I call the "practical effect" below. I see endless unconstructive bickering ahead, which is not conducive to improving the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. for some reason, they have not. The article has been there for nearly 3 years with tons of complaints and little action

2. sorry for misunderstanding

3. Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him--Kolokol1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not add additional editors when the discussion is already underway

I have reverted Deepdish's addition of Off2riorob mid discussion because it is confusing. People were supporting and opposing the ban of the original two, you can't sneak a third in there that they had no comment on. If you want to propose a separate ban do so separately. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban of Kolokol1 Kolokol1 has received no blocks, and most of the warnings on their talk page are for forgetting to sign comments. The evidence presented here is no where near enough to support a rather drastic restriction on Kolokol1's editing. A topic ban should never be a first resort when there is a conflict at an article, and the evidence here does not indicate that alternative corrective measures have been tried and failed, at least in regards to Kolokol1. Monty₈₄₅ 15:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Our edits criss-crossed. I have stated my concerns about Kolokol just above this "subsection". I don't completely disagree with you, though. Whether or not to ban Kolokol is a tougher decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Lifebaka. Site ban Deepdish7 and issue a civility warning for Kolokol1. An especially troubling sign is the posting by Deepdish7 on ruwiki asking for help against people allegedly "bought by Berezovsky".Biophys (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  Could you link that, please? I don't speak Russian, but I'm pretty sure that a machine translation will get enough of the gist. lifebaka++ 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • [42]. There are some words I wouldn't expect any machine translator to know, though. Colchicum (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, he said: "админ BlackKite, заблокировавший англоязычную версию страницы, охуел совсем уже". But incivilty on another wiki probably does not count. The real problem is WP:Canvassing. I wonder how many people may appear to support his version of article Berezovsky. This "oligarch" is quite unpopular in Russia. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

deepdish would likes to defend himself a bit

• First of all, despite not having received any warnings (I didn't know it's so important to give a warning here and whether they matter at all, but Kolokol1 clearly knew what he was doing because he saw me getting blocked for exactly same things as he was doing), Kolokol1 has violated multiple wiki policies, such as conflict of interest, one-purpose account, edit warring, deletion, advocacy. He does not only have issues with civility as lifebaka++ mentioned, it's far from that.
• If you want en example of him being engaged in edit warring, check history of Berezovsky page. In the last couple of days, or check it It's just obvious what he was doing. Or check this report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Kolokol1_reported_by_User:Remotehost719_.28Result:_Remotehost719_blocked.29 he wasn't blocked simply because I reported him from another account. You can say it's wrong to report from sockpuppet account and I understand that, but apart from strict wiki rules there's truth and lies, and the truth is that he's been engaging in absolutely same edit wars, but his friends would always report me before I reported him. If that only fact vindicates him in your opinion, then go on block me and don't block him, would be logical. Notice also, that some sockpuppets were protecting Berezovsky on the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Major_POV_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jw2035 would not be surprised if this Jw2035 turned out to be Kolokol1's sock puppet.

• Unless you clearly want to see only rules broken by me and intentionally ignore rules broken by him you will notice that Kolokol1 broke at least as many rules as I did. I don't see that many issues with BLP that I wasn't ready to discuss/edit. The problem always was that Kolokol1 never wanted to discuss anything - he would simply cut text from the article. But since they would be the first to report, it was me who was getting blocked, though again we were engaged in absolutely same edit war, as I reverted his edits as he never responded, just kept saying that everything that Klebnikov said regarding Berezovsky should be erased because some magazine accused Klebnikov of anti-semitism (which doesn't make any sense since he never mentioned Berezovsky's ethnicity, spent his youth in the USA where any racism is strictly prohibited and was a chief editor of Forbes Russia magazine).
• I still haven't heard any opinion on whether Off2RioRob should be banned as well. Carefully check Berezovsky's page edit and you'll see him again engaging in same edit war. He also engaged in edit war with me yesterday on Klebnikov page and I got blocked while he didn't simply because he reported me first. Check history of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Klebnikov&action=history. Moreover he even had enough audacity to revert my edit today, once he already had 4 reverts in the last 24h.
• Even if you decide to block me (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Wikipedia whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-based
• "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" that Kolokol1 is trying to use to justify his actions doesn't work here - he was erasing simply everything, not just unsourced or poorly sourced material. And he will continue doing so, I'm 100% sure
• "For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above" by Kolokol1 is lies again. Check below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Anti-semitic_Bias "From your above comment it is clear that you are on a mission to expose the criminality of Mr. Berezovsky and establish the superiority of Russia over Britain in matters of the rule of law and freedom of the press. While I do not question the sincerity of your zeal, Wikipedia is not a Kremlin propaganda outlet but an objective source of information."

• Would also be happy for the page to go into arbitration in case we're not banned lifetime with Kolokol1 on working on this page. Without arbitration there will be a mess if we're both or only I alone am banned, as Kolokol1 doesn't listen to anyone and erases all negative information on the page and inserts white lies in order to whiten Berezovsky's reputation (with whom he confessed of being connected, and as his nickname suggests he works for Berezovsky's Kolokol website).
• "And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?" this is again lies by Kolokol1, he deletes all negative material on Berezovsky without paying attention to whether it's NPOV or not, he just deletes everything. Just read Berezovsky page history for the last two days
• "Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him" - lies again, he doesn't "work" with anyone, but deletes sourced material at his discretionDeepdish7 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another good example of Kolokol1 not willing to discuss anything but just willing to whiten Berezovsky's reputation: I posted proposed changes on Berezovsky's discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29#Request_for_changes_and_continuation_of_debate_started_in_August Noone apart from Bbb23 has shown willingness to discuss anything. Kolokol1 had perfect chance to discuss, but when the block expired he preferred to engage in edit warring instead.Deepdish7 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User: Shail kalp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shail kalp, besides being generally difficult to understand, has now personally attacked me twice, at [43] and [44]. User was warned for WP:NPA at [45]. Now, I'm the one being attacked, so I can't act, nor can I adequately judge whether or not this really rises to the level required for an attack. I'd at least like an uninvolved admin to make it clear that such behavior isn't acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep quite! You'll only make him angrier! Doc talk 06:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian without no or very less knowledge is involving in discussions which are definetely not for him. He should stick to his knowledge and not to act like a super-editor.Shail kalp (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fact that I have little knowledge on the subject that makes me useful to this particular debate. You clearly have a lot of knowledge--which is great. The problem is that you're expressing it as if everything you know is true, and that we should just accept your opinion. You sometimes provide sources, but cover them with so many other words and your opinions that it's hard to sort out what's what. See, Wikipedia requires that all information come from WP:RS; my goal on that talk page is to try to help editors there focus on our sourcing requirements so that the article includes all relevant viewpoints, which may well include viewpoints you or others don't like (you express significant disdain for Marxist and Muslim scholars, for instance). I hope that I can continue to do so without being attacked. If you provide all of your sources, for others to examine, then we should all have enough knowledge to help figure out what goes into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a read through the talk page of that article and much of what I see is another one of those Indian disputes, although this time it is not caste related but a regional thing this time. Shail Kalp tends to write huge walls of text which make it somewhat difficult to follow, but for the most part he sticks to dealing with the content and references, personal attacks aside. Nonetheless, it's obvious that battle lines are being drawn, with camps being divided into pro-Marathi and pro-Kannada sources. I think for this report, a very stern final warning from an uninvolved admin to Shail Kalp for violating [[WP:NPA]. Shail Kalp, if you read what Qwyrxian is writing on the talk page you'll see he's trying to get you to provide sources that abide by WP:RS. Your accusations of bad faith, vandalism and personal attacks are not helpful. Also, you should use edit summaries when editing. Only a few of your edits have summaries and in general it is considered helpful to other editors to provide a summary of what you've done. --Blackmane (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shail Kalp warned and encouraged to edit more collegially. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

These things happen and people wonder why some of us say that opposing "verifiability, not truth" is such a bad idea... WT:V#First sentence - often those who claim to have the "truth" are those who do not have it... or if they do, do not have the tolerance and patience to develop it *cough* ScienceApologist *cough*--Cerejota (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Battle of Tali-Ihantala article

Page in question: Battle of Tali-Ihantala Some of the related diffs:

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

By user: User:YMB29 - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So what is disruptive about that? It is your editing that is disruptive. I am trying to balance the POV in the article but you keep removing or manipulating any edits that do not agree with the Finnish POV... You also have a habit of misusing sources for citations; your sources don't support your edits or you make your own conclusions from the sources, hence the tags.

I did not make reverts but you keep on reverting and altering what I add to the article.[50][51][52]

So it is ok if you add "according to some researchers..." or "according to Russian sources...", but when I do that it is disruptive?

I will comment more on this later. -YMB29 (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the latest diff you first erased non-Finnish citation from a comment and then added "according to Finnish sources" to it. If that is disuptive editing or POV pushing i do not know what is. But this matter should be left for the admins to decide, if you have further comments on this topic please post them either to article talk page or to my talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What did I erase? The sources you use often don't match the statements you cite them for. You even use sources that actually contradict the statements you are citing them for.[53] This is really disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, which means there's no administrative action needed. Have either of you sought a third opinion or otherwise attempted any sort of dispute resolution, such as a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked about the matter in IRC and this was the place where i was instructed to post. I suppose matter could be handled elsewhere but that was the information that i got. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I mention it because I don't see any communication on the article Discussion page in over two weeks, and without discussion, WP:CONSENSUS can't be reached. I'd suggest that if the two of you can't find common ground between you, start by asking for a third opinion or other outside comments (see WP:RFC). If that fails, head over to WP:DRN. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AFDs of articles created in India Education Program

Some AfDs have been raised on articles which have been (or may have been) created as part of Wikipedia:India Education Program.[54][55] In the first case this is stated at Talk:Strxfrm, in the other case it simply looks likely from the creator's user page[56] and the IEP description.[57] Some are tagged here. This may well be absolutely fine and perhaps one role for the Wikimedia Global Education Program[58] is to demonstrate that articles are regularly shot at dawn. However, maybe someone can check this out and do something, if necessary. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, so far we've only had other problems -- copyvio, OR, NPOV, and MOS, not notability issues. I'll notify the foundation liaison of this discussion. Perhaps they ought to add this to their list of to-dos. —SpacemanSpiff 09:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems a good idea to me. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the project page Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms#Unencyclopaedic content the project lead and ambassadors about this discussion.

Quite a few articles are also on Prod Abort (C standard library), complex inverse hyperbolic sine, Cpow, Frexp(), Sqrt (C standard library), and Strtok are all proposed for deletion. Several others have already been deleted or moved to userspace. eg Iswlower has been userfied to User:Nupuragrawal3/Iswlower. Look at the list I would say about half are likely deletion targets. --Salix (talk): 11:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. Mato (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone could look into this I would be grateful, but there may be reason to suspect that Special:Contributions/86.144.245.254 is evading a block based on the edits they have made. Regards. Mato (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another neglected AFD - seems to be a trend

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adultism --Penbat (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed. The problem was that the AfD is not listed in the log at WP:Articles for deletion and so could not be noticed by closers. This may be due to an unnoticed error in the execution of the script that relisted the discussion.  Sandstein  15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

its not the first time this has happened recently so there may be a systematic issue here.--Penbat (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After the initial period the discussion was inconclusive, so user:Causa sui marked it relisted and correctly commented it out of the August 7 log. I think it should then have been added to the August 15 log but wasn't. The cumbersome nature of AfD transclusions makes little slipups like this difficult to completely avoid. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It was definitely script assisted, though I don't have much memory of this one. I use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js for all my AFD closes and relists. Maybe some better fault tolerance could be built into the script. I remember a few times my internet connection would hiccup while I was in the middle of closing or relisting an AFD and something like this would happen. Usually I catch it and finish the job manually, but in this case I must have missed it. Good catch. causa sui (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:DumbBOT used to catch these cases. I wonder what happened to it... T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Flood of nominations for userboxes at WP:MFD

Hi there. There is currently a flood of nominations for unused userboxes at WP:MFD. A discussion ensued at Unused userboxes about how to handle those nominations and/or whether to close them for now. As WT:MFD is not the most frequented area of the project, more eyes here would be appreciated. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

user Sitush and MatthewVanitas are extremely biased.

Resolved

- reporting IP blocked 3 months - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

user Sitush and MatthewVanitas are extremely biased. Even after so many discussion and references they have completely hijacked the article YADAV and have put in incorrect information. Due to them wikipedia has become like a personal blog. some one please be unbiased and correct the article and put in the correct information. Sitush and MatthewVanitas have a tendency to put in their personal opinion in article YADAV and dont care about neutrality. They have completely ignored all references provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.192.2 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I have notified MatthewVanitas. Just off to notify myself ... - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry Sitush, I took care of that. Let's hope they come here to defend themself. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the reporting IP user's address listed as having contributed any edits to either the article itself or to the Discussion page for the article. Is there another registered user involved here, one that perhaps doesn't wish to be hoisted on their own petard? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Their edits to Talk:Yadav tend to be deleted. There is some discussion at User_talk:EdJohnston about this, in relation to Truefact1979. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Both these users show a distressing tendency to prefer reliable sources and to insist that both sides of contentious topics be reported with such. They show a lack of combative and tendentious editing which is very regrettable, and severely reduces the amount of drama here. Moar dramaaah! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Very valid points. I propose that the community compliment them severely, and that a sticker be placed in their permanent record. Let's not have any more of that sensible stuff; it totally destroys our reputation. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a block-evading IP of User:Dewan357. –MuZemike 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, but Dewan357 has been traveling a bit lately (and therefore jumping IPs), but this one's him for sure based on behavior alone, especialy at Raja Raja Chola I.—SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Will this be added to Dewan's SPI archive then? He was heavily involved as TrueFact79 and blocked just days ago. This ed really has some strong opinions and a desperation to express them... MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of his blocks aren't logged in the SPI, they are in the two sock cats only. Just add {{IPsock|Dewan357|confirmed}} to the IP user pages, it'll sit in the category after that. —SpacemanSpiff 18:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page abuse at User talk:Antmfan1233

Resolved

 – Indeffed.

Antmfan1233 (talk · contribs), despite multiple messages (which they ignored), continues to use their talk page as the (alternate?) scoreboard for some kind of reality show. Your input and actions are appreciated. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing at the Simple English Wikipedia, though not sure if it is for the same show. It amounts to trying to use Wikipedia userspace as a free webhost for something completely unrelated to the site's goals. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would have blocked them had I not been the one who warned them a few times already. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've given them ample warnings to knock it off, so I've given them an indefinite block. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking

Ken keisel (talk · contribs) is accusing me of wikistalking and being "a real danger here". Considering his edits show ongoing problems with the concept of WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research, as these diffs indicate, I ask that he be restricted from making similar accusations about editors who are making good-faith efforts to insure that articles he has worked on comply with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Sarek's take on this. --John (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• The user in question (keisel) has been here for nearly 6 years, albeit with some lengthy gaps. But he should know better... unless he's been flying under the radar until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A review of SarakOfVulcan's edit history will show that he has been following each of my edits with edits of his own for the last week, regardless of subject. These edits include subjects that SarakOfVulcan has previously shown no interest in. The situation became disturbing when SarakOfVulcan made an edit on the Gerhardt Cycleplane article, that took place on 20:00, 9 September 2011. SarakOfVulcan deleted a factual statement referenced from a cited book published by the US Air Force. In his explanation he posted; "just about every other ref calls the Gossamer Condor the first successful human-powered craft", referring to an aircraft that appeared a half century later. The article lists several Human-powered aircraft that existed before it, with appropriate citations. SarakOfVulcan offered no reference for his claim, which contradicts the properly referenced information in the article. SarakOfVulcan has been warned that continued editing of every article I have edited, often with erroneous information as seen above, would result in the matter being placed on the appropriate Wikipedia notice board. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue seems to be the definition of "successful". They apparently did a few test flights. Did anything come of it? Or was it like the "Spruce Goose", i.e. flown a little bit and then mothballed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is Ken keisel using selective sourcing, or not bothering to source at all. The Cycleplane article is just one instance of an ongoing problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wright 1903 Flyer made a couple of test flights before being wrecked by a strong wind. It was rebuilt into a different aircraft, but is still considered the world's first "successful" airplane. The total number of flights made is not relevent. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SarakOfVulcan wouldn't know about selective sourcing, since he prefers not to use sources at all. See his comments on the 20:00, 9 September 2011 edit of the Gerhardt Cycleplane article. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"prefers not to use sources at all." Riiiiiiiiiight. You know, Ken, your history of putting things on Wikipedia with this level of reliability is why we're in this discussion. Stop digging.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You can say what you want, but you edit is there for everyone to see. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the edit in question, by the way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he's already been warned on his talk page, Sarek. I'll input there. lifebaka++ 19:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, I'm sorry, but I cannot accept "input" as a verb. Informally, maybe, or in a memo, but not in a public forum like this one. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Verbing weirds language. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a verb, just not an intransitive one. You have to input something, you can't just input. At least, my Apple ][ would always complain if I failed to input something following an INPUT statement.</pedantry> 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question Sarek could you explain, preferably with some diffs, why Ken keisel's edits are being legitimately followed as part of your job as an administrator? John and Bwilkins have both said that this is what you're doing, but I'm not sure I understand why. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUND states "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." In this diff, I removed a statement about Irving Harper that was cited to a particular source, when a Google Books search in that source showed that Harper's name appeared nowhere in the book, never mind in a way that supported the edit. In this diff, I removed a statement that appeared nowhere in the given source. In this diff, I supplied a reference supporting an unexplained change that Ken keisel had made. In this diff, I removed uncited original research. Do you notice a trend here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IP editor(s) at National Maximum Speed Law

I've been involved in a long running disagreement with an IP editor (or perhaps many) over at National Maximum Speed Law. In particular, he RVs most of the edits I make and does not talk to me about the substance of this. This has been going on very slowly for a few months now.

In a recent incident I proposed a change on the talk page, waited several days and made the proposed change after there were no comments. An IP then RVed that change and wrote a comment on the talk page that was primarily about me and not about the article itself. I asked the user on the talk page to engage about the substance. After five days, I'm here.

I'm not really sure how I even want to proceed.

Some more history: I summarized the edits and talk page activities here. Here another user is accusing me of edit waring. I'm not really sure how to deal with an IP that RVs and won't discuss (nobody has ever told me, except another Admin's suggestion to go here, to ANI) except to say that I'm somehow supposed to "work things out on the talk page" with someone (or people) who don't use the talk page to talk about the article. After that I worked out some edits with a registered editor (who I have no dispute with) and update the page. Then it was RVed by an IP. Then I proposed my changes bit by bit and the rest is what is the incident above.

One more question, who am I supposed to put that template on? Again, I don't know if I'm dealing with one or more IPs. For now, I will add it to the IP that last RVed me. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently taking a look at it. Generally if someone reverts without discussion you can request that they be blocked for edit warring. If multiple editors/IPs are reverting you can also request that the page be protected from editing, which will force discussion to occur. N419BH 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're trying to promote pro-55mph viewpoints and suppress anti-55mph viewpoints. Per WP:NPOV this is not a good idea. I would probably revert you too. N419BH 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Look again. I'm promoting inclusion of references (pro- and anti-55) that meet WP:RS. I have added both types of reference and since there was only anti-55 on the page when I got there, it is true that I have removed only anti-55 references. That said, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of various edits on the talk page with whomever would like to talk there. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're going, but I agree with the IP that placing the pro-55 viewpoint in the lead sentence is not a good idea, and I would have reverted you in most of the diffs I looked at too. You need to provide both viewpoints, reliably sourced, and allow the reader to make their own conclusion since there really isn't a definitive answer one way or the other. You might of course point out that the safety of automobiles in general has vastly improved since 1973, so you're comparing apples to oranges in a way, which is why there is no definitive answer. You're much more likely to survive a crash these days thanks to airbags, crumple zones, roofs that don't crush, and stricter enforcement of seatbelt and DUI laws. You could probably write a whole series of articles on traffic safety for that matter; in fact, I bet such a series already exists. N419BH 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After another editor started talking with me about that, I dropped changing the lead. But is "what should happen to the article" the topic here? I thought that was the topic on the article's talk page (where I'd love to talk to you or others about edits). I think the point is that I'm getting RVed but no discussion and I want it to stop. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

ip continually adding falsified information

The article James King (Royal Navy officer) has been the subject of some low level vandalism by an ip user , who continually adds a demonstrably false piece of information concerning the subject's place of birth. (see the article talkpage for how the present information is sourced). Repeated attempts to get this user to engage with the evidence have failed, and a single purpose account the ip used to disrupt the page, User:Skellands, was eventually blocked indefinitely. It has now become a simple matter of the ip, having ignored all requests to stop or to engage in discussion or otherwise present sources for his single edit, reverting anyone who restores the correctly sourced information. Simply applying a temporary block does not seem a practical solution given the user's edit pattern. Benea (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)