Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

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

Future timestamped to prevent archival.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:35, 18 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: [1] (2 redirects), [2] (3 redirects, 2 of them the same), [3] (1 redirect, 1 redlink), [4] (1 redirect, 1 redlink) etc etc. I've asked him on his talk page, but he just responded with a personal attack [5]. 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: [6], [7] etc etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, here [8], 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 [9] and he's adding straight vandalism to his work now [10]. 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)

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 [11][12] in spite of a warning I placed on his talk page [13]. What is bizarre is that he restored the improper source even though he was aware acceptable sources had been posted on the talk page [14]. 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 ([15]). 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)

Without getting involved in any other aspects of this dispute, I can readily affirm, as a practicing lawyer with 25 years' experience, that Jarhed's view is significantly overstated. I would not presume to give conclusive advice about the law of another state than the one in which I practice and am licensed, but I certainly could read a court document from another state and have a good idea of what it says and means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could put a point on it by asking you to prove your qualifications to judge my legal advice.Jarhed (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To be a little bit less succinct, any talk page post that starts out with the words, "as a practicing lawyer with 25 years' experience", is on its face, PURE POV. I don't care what your experience is and you shouldn't care about mine. All I care about are reliable secondary sources for facts in BLP's. The difference between my statement and yours is that I am quoting out of the BLP guideline and you are pulling yours out of your secret lawyer place.Jarhed (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been informed that my remarks are intemperate and I apologize. I want to emphasize that what I said was not directed at any particular person, especially not at editor Brad. My remarks are strictly general in nature, and my vehemence has to do with ensuring strict compliance with BLP. I apologize for my abruptness.Jarhed (talk) 17:01, 17 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)

Lionel, don’t be so hard on yourself. I mean sure you were misguided in filing this complaint – but blocking you over this would be harsh. Just treat it as a learning experience and try to do better next time ;o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:31, 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)

MastCell, please just add this content yourself, if you have time. As a further green light, Off2riorob has looked at the WP:RS listed on the talk page and agrees that the content should be included in the article.[16] Continued discussion of court transcripts is completely irrelevant in the light of these other sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 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)

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 [17]. and gave some response here [18]. 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 [19].

Evidence of selective notification:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

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[27]. 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)

Don't be ridiculous, we don't block people, let alone ban them, for a single incident of canvassing, if that's what happened, and if is indeed canvassing, a message on the AfD to the closing admin is sufficient. Your call for blood is completely disproportionate to the scale of the incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 17 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)

• Alright, so in this case, the canvassing that occurred seems to have been basically countered by the more neutral attention brought to the discussion by this ANI. But has BabbaQ now shown that he understands the issues with his actions? I want it to be clear why this was wrong so that we don't end up here again, because if we do some sort of action will need to be taken.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:14, 17 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" [28]. 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)

• support topic ban for Deepdish7. Reading through this thread including his recent defense further down I don't see any other working solution. No comment (as of yet) about Kolokol1.TMCk (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Although not strictly relevant, I have just spent a chunk of time backing out changes Kolokol made to this discussion, including but not limited to adding section headers in the middle of previous discussions and making a significant change to one of my comments. I have left a stern warning on Kolokol's Talk page. What really made me angry about this was that there was already a discussion on Kolokol's Talk page that I started with respect to refactoring and the problems associated with it. For Kolokol to come here and repeat the same behavior makes reminds me, regrettably, of Deepdish's unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even when they are brought to his attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I inserted two subsections (see diffs below) with the sole purpose of making the reading of this oversized discussion easier for the users. Please don't brand this well-intentioned purely technical improvement as an act of malice - this not constructive and is simply not worthy of everyone's time. And what is the "significant change" I made to your comment? I don't think I did. Please provide diff. Thanks --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450871837

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450872055

• Sigh. First, I didn't accuse you of malice. Second, I would normally have assumed good faith in the addition of the subsections if it weren't for our previous discussion about refactoring. Even so, I didn't think it was malicious - perhaps more willful or stubborn or something along those lines. Finally, here is the diff of the change to my comment, which is, of course, what bothered me the most.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. I hope you will accept my apology and take my word that this insertion of gibberish in the middle of a word was a completely inadvertent technical error, perhaps a glitch in my keyboard. Happened to my posts too.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I accept your apology, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding subsection headers is a standard practice on Wikipedia. You should have familiarized yourself with the guideline you are referring to before issuing stern warnings. There is, of course, nothing wrong in not being familiar with it, and subheaders weren't strictly necessary here, but warning people over this is a bit rich. At this point I think it is better for you to let Kolokol1 alone, it is obvious that nothing good will come out of this bickering. Colchicum (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding subsection headers at the end of these kinds of discussions is common (as has already been done here). Adding them in the middle is not and can cause problems in misleadingly characterizing or confining comments to a particular subsection. And you don't even acknowledge my point that he changed one of my posts, which no matter how you interpret WP:REFACTOR and other related policies, is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the diffs (including the two above) and haven't found any changes in any of your comments. And I am afraid you won't find many supporters of your interpretation of WP:REFACTOR. See WP:REFACTOR#Resectioning. Stop already. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Response from 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 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) [29], repeated instances of edit-warring (wich has already earned him two blocks and page protection of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), posting copyvios ([30], [31]), massive BLP violations (see the entire edit history of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), canvassing [32], 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: [33] 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 [34], 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 abortive rescue attempts, but when I bumped into it three months ago, it was quite a disaster.

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)

  • [35]. 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)

Google translator: "admin BlackKite, who locked the English version of the page is quite ohuel". "Ohuel" in plain Russian means "out of his f--king mind".--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that Deepdish is back with a vengeance. I will then heed to the advice of a fellow wikipedian to avoid the drama and rest my case. Let the river run its course. Leaving the battlefield to connoisseurs (and Russophiles :) Thank you everyone--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so when I originally supported the idea of a ban for both Deepdish7 and Kolokol1, I wasn't aware of all the details at the time. Here is my analysis... Kolokol1 is a long-time editor (has been on Wikipedia longer than me even) with over 1,000 edits and a clean block log. Deepdish7 has been around for a few months and has been blocked three times (including a current block) for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. I also see some evidence of canvassing. I don't see the same level of disruption from Kolokol1, or really any actual disruption. Therefore I don't think that equilateral action is called for. I'm definitely more in favor of banning Deepdish7 than Kolokol1. I think that a page ban from the main page of the Berezovsky article would be sufficient. Having said that, I do have some concerns about Kolokol1's conflict of interest, but as long as the COI is openly acknowledged and not accompanied by actual disruption I don't think that it causes a problem. I already cautioned Kolokol1 at the COI noticeboatd about being careful when accusing others of libel, per WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. -- Atama頭 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Atama, saying Kolokol is a "long-time editor" is not quite accurate. Kolokol edited first for a few days in 2006, then nothing until 2008, at which time he made 4 edits to the Berezovsky page. After that, he didn't edit until July of this year. So, although it's true he has been editing since 2006, he really has only been editing in earnest since July of this year. I'm glad you weighed in, though - I wondered what had happened to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. My point is that even though Kolokol1 has had more activity overall than Deepdish7, he has a clean block log, which would indicate that Deepdish7 is far more prone to disruption, and that's why I no longer support applying the same measures to both editors. -- Atama頭 02:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama, for taking time to review my history and for acknowledging my clean record. I would still hope that any administrative action taken would cite a specific WP policy that I violated and give a reference to the violation. If I am banned simply to "balance" a justified restraining measure applied to another user, this would not be rooted in any of current WP policies. I scrupulously obeyed all the rules and will exercise my right of appeal in case of an arbitrary sanction.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

deepdish would like 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:

[36] 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)

I checked the 3rr report you'd filed as a sock and there was clearly NO violation by Kolokol1. You're right now blocked (again) for violating exactly this rule and you still don't get it right and reading the rest of your post just reads like "some one is digging his hole deeper".TMCk (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
And in my opinion you're already past 6 feet.TMCk (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolokol-1 could be useful to calm things down :) . Count Iblis (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that (sarcassm or truth) but I think Kolokol1 has shown some professionalism here and seems to be willing to hold his temper and be more civil in the future. I wouldn't wonder if they would do so if they don't have to deal with Deepdish7 at the article in question. Just a thought.TMCk (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow his link, it was just a (not very funny) pun. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the (stupid) link that I of course didn't check as it is apparent in the first part of my post.TMCk (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• More response to Deepdish7's defense post: There is another problem I see here. You write:
  "...Kolokol1 had perfect chance to discuss, but when the block expired he preferred to engage in edit warring instead."
  You give the impression that Kokolol1 was blocked at some point even so they have a clean block log unlike you of course who even now can't add this page without a legit proxy as you're sitting out yet another block of 2 weeks for edit warring. Not that i wonder since you already made clear on BlackKite's talkpage that you'll resume reverting (called edit warring here on wiki) after the protection of the article in question is lifted.TMCk (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • He is specifically talking about the article being unlocked, not Kolokol being unblocked. I can attest that Deepdish did post on the talk page whilst the article was locked, seeking opinion, and nothing was responded to. Due to the oft cite "silence equals consent", all editors had the opportunity to discuss changes to the article, but they said nothing. Instead they engaged in reverting Deepdish when he made changes to the article. Look at this objectively, not just one way ok. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Just a technical side note: An article can be "protected" or "locked" but only editors are "blocked".TMCk (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
      And it's the other way around: "Silence doesn't equal consent".TMCk (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, silence does not usually equal consent. This was another instance in which Deepdish tried to make up his own rules as to procedure. In a less controversial situation, I can see an editor going ahead and making a change when he receives no response on a Talk page to a proposal, but this was hardly a normal situation. Part of the problem is Deepdish is just too impatient, not unfortunately an uncommon problem on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment by Kolokol1

Please refer to this rubbish. Why does he feel the need to do this? It may as well read:

1. You said you wrote to the girl
2. The girl said she was raped
3. You denied you raped her
4. I believe you
5. But hey, I am going to accuse you of being a rapist via the back-door again by leaving shit like this on your talk page.

And yes, I stand by my edit summary when I removed it. As anyone who is familiar with cases involving myself, this accusation is something I have had to put up with for a long, long time....hell Colchicum even basically insinuated the same thing above...instead of possibly informing the editor on his talk page in his discussions that there is no evidence of that, and continued accusations are harrassment and to drop it. Colchicum's comments above only encourage crap like this.

Tell Kolokol1 to stay away from me. He is here to engage in advocacy, and I'll be damned if I am going to continue to be accused of crap like that on a continual basis. I suggested a WP:DIGWUREN warning for Kolokol1; you guys wanted to give him a civility warning? LOL yeah I see that was really going to work. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:39, 17 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 [37] and [38]. User was warned for WP:NPA at [39]. 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)

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)

A related speedy deletion criterion has been proposed at WT:CSD. →Στc. 05:42, 17 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)

Comment: Given the fact that this Dewan357 has been disruptively socking since 2009, has anyone considered floating a ban proposal? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:11, 17 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)

I notice two trends. 1) Ken keisel is not referencing claims the way he is supposed to and 2) Sarekofvulcan seems to be addressing this problem in a very aggressive manner. Much of the actual information in question, provided your own diffs, appears to have been correct but inadequately sourced. Aren't there other ways to handle this? Do non BLP, non-vandalism edits need to be flat out reverted because you, one reviewer, aren't seeing the information in the sources provided? Aren't there tags to show that something fails verification? Aren't there ways to try to bring issues like this up with someone in a collegial manner that might actually help them reform their habits? We want knowledgeable people editing here. Of course we want them to abide by policy when they do so, but it just seems to me that there is room for improvement on how this has been handled. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

People have been collegially telling Ken keisel to cite sources for three years now. It hasn't worked yet. If you think you can get him to follow policy where nobody before you has succeeded, feel free to engage him yourself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

One diff merely shows someone saying that to him once, and not a repeated pattern of him getting advice over and over again which is what your statement claims. Now I'm not saying that other people haven't pointed this out to him, or that this hasn't been a problem for years. I'm simply saying that following him around and reverting his additions isn't a particularly productive way to solve the problem, and I don't care that two other admins claim this is part of your job, because IMO its simply going to provoke this editor to do things like accuse you of stalking. Perhaps he needs a mentor? Perhaps you need to start an RfC? Perhaps he can be leveled with if someone else steps in? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is within the normal scope of admin interventions. The question is, if another admin takes over who has no other background history here, will there be any change in ultimate outcome in responses.

Ken's right that Sarek seems to have made one mistake while responding to Ken, but Ken's missing the point that everything else appears to be reasonable "You can't say that without sourcing, and this is becoming a behavioral problem" admin response.

A mentor or RFC would be great. But the policy is pretty straightforwards. Ken, please listen to the feedback that sourcing accuracy and citations are important. You're being far too loose with this and it's gotten you in trouble (and will continue to get you in worse trouble if you don't correct the problem).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• You'll find a thread on Ken's talkpage from me about using sources as well [40]. In this case the problem was using 'insider information', and a sense on Ken's part that he was doing the project a favour by including such info, which he cannot source because it's not been made public yet. All his articles are about aircraft, not BLPs, so it's slightly less problematic, but the talk page contains numerous conversations about sources, so it is an ongoing problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Couple of more concerning things [41] demanding to know if Sarek is a child - not helpful. Also [42] and [43] which appear to be fibs designed to get Sarek into trouble - even less helpful. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Elen those links convince me even more so that he needs a mentor, or that a systematic effort to evaluate the problems with his editing are needed if he can't be leveled with. Going around reverting his edits is clearly not an end in itself. I can't imagine that Sarek is resigned to shadow another editor as a solution to this problem. I wont speculate to motives but all I can see happening from that activity is provoking something out of Ken that might get him blocked or otherwise dealt with. Most of the edits Sarek linked to from Ken were accurate pieces of information that were added without the proper sourcing. The encyclopedia gains nothing if good edits that are poorly sourced are deleted as opposed to actually verified. Such edits also do not require deletion on sight, like BLP and vandalism concerns do. In fact in most other circumstances deleting as opposed to tagging or discussing on talk will lead people to think the deleting editor is the disruptive one. Another question to you all is, what is being sought here? What type of solution are you all looking for? More warnings building up a block? Or do you want this editor to actually comply with policy, because again I suggest other means will work more effectively.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A very minor point: it's "Sarek", not "Sarak". This edit summary seems to indicate that Ken knows it's actually spelled Sarek (plus, all one has to do is use their freakin' eyes to see that it's not "Sarak"). Doc talk 03:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have considered that pedantic if it wasn't misspelled a total of 7 times in this thread. -- Atama頭 04:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be basically respectful (and correct) if Kan (eep) Ken would spell it properly from here on in, Atema (urk) Atama ;> Doc talk 06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a second look in light of the comments. Maybe mentorship would be a good idea. Not sure if I can commit that much time to it but I am happy to keep an eye on Ken, if he will accept that. Or maybe someone else has more time? --John (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I find Griswaldo best reflects my thoughts regarding this thread. I do not think any of SarekOfVulcan's actions should be considered an admin function. It is the function of normal editing. While SarekOfVulcan might demonstrate sound judgement with regard to admin tool use, he is not in keeping with best practices for collaborative editing. I also know that Ken is amiable to collaboration, as we have interacted personally. This thread became disproportionate when the biggest deal was made regarding semantics. How improper it should be for an editor to say you appear to be stalking me. The initial argument was to ask Ken to retract his concern (his word), and to adopt the opposing rational, which effectively was; "He didn't stalk you -- you should recant -- he did stalk you but as an admin function". I do know Ken well enough to say, he reacts much better to sound reason, than straw man and ad hominem. Many discussions with Ken rely too heavily on these.--My76Strat (talk) 07:44, 17 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)

Unfortunately I don't see anything actionable from an administrative standpoint. This is a content dispute, and you and the other editors at the article need to figure it out. If you get reverted you need to figure out why and fix your edit so you don't get reverted again. I'm now watching the article and will help if the issues persist. But now myself and an admin have agreed with the IP's reverts, so I think you need to look at the contents of your own edits rather than the reverts of others. I'm not saying your edits are bad, I'm saying you need to look at how they're likely to be interpreted. The goal is WP:NPOV. We're not here to convince someone one way or another, we're here to present facts in an organized manner and allow the reader to make their own conclusions. N419BH 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could describe the process by which I "you and the other editors at the article need to figure it out." when the other editor will not engage in discussion. You also write, "if the issues persist" two months isn't long enough? Is this for real? 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're pretty much doing it. Make an edit, if it's reverted make a different edit and request the reverter to explain on the talk page. I see discussion on the talk page from both you and IPs so I'm not quite sure where this "no discussion" is coming from. It does seem like the IP is engaging in some WP:OWN behavior but not enough to warrant blocking them. N419BH 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Show me two edits where the IP engages me in with respect to the article. (this excludes the IP concerned about 55 vs 85 who I am sure is a separate editor). 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of different IPs, and they all engage you with their edit summaries (I don't like the bad faith accusation in that one but the rest has merit) and point out exactly what they think is wrong when they revert. If you look at the entire article from June until today, you'll see that many of your changes, as well as the changes of other editors, have been accepted. N419BH 22:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So... no then, you can't. I mean get real, "restore viewpoints that O18 removed" complete with removing sources I added in the edit and the fact that there was a place where I had started a discussion at the time is just a little beyond the pail as, "discussion"? Another is, "This person is acting in bad faith and converting the article to have his POV and alos deleting valid pop culture references.)" and the "pop culture reference" in question might be the link to regression towards the mean which is not what this is a case of. I'd be happy to explain that on the talk page, if the editor asked or made clear that this actually was the pop culture reference. More than an edit summary is needed. 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you think it is okay that I proposed an edit on the talk page, waited five (5) days where there was no comments, then I made the edit, and then had it undone, and the editor wrote out a massive rant about my editing and continued to not comment on the edits themselves on the talk page. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The rant was not ideal, and if he keeps it up he'll end up blocked. N419BH 04:48, 17 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)

Reverted the IP. The source utilized is authoritative, the IP is using conjecture. N419BH 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• IP blocked 2 weeks for block evasion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block review - Afterthetruth

User talk:Afterthetruth Afterthetruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - I blocked after quick comparison with Blogging4truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive. It seems rather straightforwards, between user name and the particular content focus (see DRV filing by Afterthetruth). I've gotten several emails from them proclaiming innocence, however, so I am throwing this out for independent review... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obviously socking. (Endorse) N419BH 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First edit is to a DRV about Michael Crook, and only edits have been related to Crook. Yep, the quacking is so loud it echoes down here. Blueboy96 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ssriram mt's edits

I'm having a few problems in explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines to User:Ssriram mt. The user has been violating some of Wikipedia's policies and not heeding my advice.

For example, consider the following articles which the user had created.

• Thiruppaarththanpalli
• Thiru Vanpurushothamam

When I moved this articles to "Taamaraiyaal Kelvan Perumal Temple" and "Purushotama Perumal Temple" explaining that the name in the infobox should be the same as the subject of the article, the user had reverted it back. Now, I need some help and also some expert opinion on what the name of the article should be.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be better served with a discussion at WT:Hinduism (I saw you posted on WT:INB). I see your point, but both names are being used within the article (although the primary name within the article and the title appear to be in conflict) and for a couple of articles that I checked, I could find much help through Google either.—SpacemanSpiff

Where's all the admins?

I've been looking at WP:RFPP. We have at least 22 requests that have not been answered, some of which that have not been answered for over 24 hours. Where are all the admins?OpenInfoForAll (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 DoneAll cleared now (note, not all done by me!!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

User:Mlawrence14 is a new account with a total of 4 edits, all of them being vandalism to the same article. [44], [45], [46], [47]. Given progressive warnings. Notified of ANI here[48]. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked them based on a report at WP:AIV. In the future, for simple vandalism like this, WP:AIV is the better venue than here. --Jayron32 05:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• They usually tend to be slower in my experience. Either way, it got taken care of. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mlillybaltimore

This user has been deleting genres from band and album articles a lot. The user, as seen on his/her talk page, has been blocked once in the recent past for this type of behavior. (S)he has since been given four warnings from two different users about the genre warring since that block, but has not stopped regardless. He or she removes genres due to an alleged lack of reliable sourcing, and has performed edits involving a removal of the allmusic citation. Affected pages include The King of Limbs (history), Clinic (band) and respective album pages (such as Visitations (Clinic album) and Winchester Cathedral (album)), Gorillaz (history) and Gorillaz (album) (history), Radiohead (history). It's one thing to occassionally remove genres due to being unsourced, but I feel that this is a case of WP:POINT. I'm not going to attempt or care to go into a multi-page genre feud with this person, because there are already too many of those, generally speaking. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Trying to clean up Wikipedia pages to make sure that the inclusion of reliable, third party sources are included when it comes to describing the genre of a band or album is not a radical, or unreasonable endeavor. If User:Backtable has an issue with my removal of tenuous genre affiliations, he or she needs to simply cite a reliable third party source. It's that simpleMlillybaltimore (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If content is unsourced, and if there's any doubt over it, then removing it is a Good Thing; this is supposed to be an encyclopædia rather than a collection of lots of factoids which each editor believes to be true. However, we don't need a source to say that the sky is blue. If there's any disagreement over whether or not specific sources justify particular claims of genre, then the reliable sources noticeboard might be a good place to ask.

Genres are a magnet for trouble anyway. If in doubt, leave it out. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong & poor policy interpretation: can someone have a word, please

See this from MangoWong. I am becoming fed up of having to counter the often snide comments of this user but this particular one is a recent example of their unwillingness to accept what I believe to be a correct interpretation of policy. There is similar stuff scattered all over Talk:Yadav and other caste articles in which they have had an involvement, and even in forum discussions such as this one. I feel that there is a need for some uninvolved admins to provide some input on what is or is not policy. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of where MangoWong argues the toss about what DougWeller said at AN3. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And recent advice regarding continually bringing up these types of issue and instigating inappropriate "teaching". MW is clearly stalking my edits, given the number of WikiLove messages that they post to users whom I have become involved with, but that is merely an irritation - I can live with it. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Andering J. REDDSON

Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I have exhibited patience when corresponding with this one but he seems intent upon being uncivil. In March, I responded on Talk:Non-lethal weapon to Reddson's concerns. He placed a POV tag 1 and in June, with no dialog occurring on the talk page, I removed it as stale...2. He was apparently disgruntled and filed a MedCab case in which he wrongly named me as having reverted him in a content dispute. He did not prevail against others in the dispute.

More recently, he started a dialog on the Mythbusters page. He accused me of stalking his edits although I have been editing that article well before his arrival and AFAIK we have not met at any other article. Rather oddly, I agreed with him and tried to assist in his requests but was met with hostility which I have ignored. He accused me of attacking him in that thread although I don't see it...so I backed away and let others handle it.

I frequently help out at User talk:Misza13's page concerning archiving and try to setup archiving where appropriate. When I noticed Reddson wasn't signing his posts with a datestamp, I politely requested that he do so. He responded with this; I do not feel that I have given him cause for the incivility which I have been receiving and feel that admin help is needed at this point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment and left a level 2 warning for the attack.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can action be taken against an IP user who constantly refuses to follow guidelines on Talk pages?

I'm not sure if this warrants a block, but I think action of some sort needs to be taken against an IP user who refuses to follow the normal Talk page etiquette. In particular, he never signs his posts, and does not create new section headings properly. He has been shown how to do things but seems to take no notice, and is still claiming that he doesn't know what to do. There have also been incidents of abusive posts, sockpuppeting and deletion of other users' posts, but thankfully these seem to have stopped now.
See Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan#Merger Proposal and subsequent sections. There is a post in the Signing Posts section where I have linked to other examples of misconduct.
Whilst a block may be harsh, I'm not sure what else to do - we have tried and failed with normal negotiations. Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

His latest post is here. This just about sums it up. Bazonka (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And then he deleted this thread from the noticeboard: [49]. I feel that the case for blocking is getting stronger. Bazonka (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

He has used three separate IPs on that talk page since 12 September. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a lengthy note on xyr talk page explaining why what seem like trivial details actually matter. Let's see if this leads to any improvement; should we instead see a defiant response, I have no qualms with another admin blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If they are using multiple IPs, then it's possible that some comments/advice in user talk space won't reach the intended reader... no? bobrayner (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User has since created an account User:Sascha30. I suggest an admin pop by and give them the run down on how to behave on Blackmane (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:ChristianandJericho‎

User talk:ChristianandJericho‎ seems to be making a lot of CSD/AFD errors as well as leaving a few inappropriate warnings, for instance a 3RR warning on Future Perfect's talk page. After CSD rejections and other warnings the user wipes their talk page. I don't think the user is acting in bad faith, but could an admin take a look at the contrib history and determine if any action or a warning is needed? Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 09:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

They identify themselves as 13 on their user page, so perhaps maturity is a factor here. They also note their membership in WP:WikiProject Pornography, where age is no barrier to participation, apparently. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe neither of these statements - particularly the second, as he never appears to have edited in this area. I have left a warning [50] - if he makes another stupid nomination, I would think another block would be in order, and given his previous three, I'm thinking a block of several weeks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how one can refute this, editing aside. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Block him, he's disrupted many articles, including my own. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be disruptive, but I was never warned by an admin, also most of my CSDs were confirmed and deleted so fine I'll read the WP:Deletion thing before I nominate an article for deletion --ChristianandJericho 13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been blocked three times, now you come back to disrupt again? Indefinite block is needed here. Colofac (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made over 700 contrustive edits to wikipedia, I believe what I did was right and I can join the WP:Porn is I want to, there is no age limit --ChristianandJericho 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are the perfect example of why there needs to be a minimum age limit for joining Wikipedia. It's quite obvious that this website exceeds your maturity levels. If you think being a member of a porn project is the reason why this debate is taking place, you only serve to further validate my opinions. Colofac (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, despite the fact that in some jurisdictions it would be illegal for someone to sell you (or possibly even just show you) porn, there is no restriction on a 13 year-old editor joining Wikiproject Pornography. Sorry if you thought my criticism was directed at you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin, I'd say that if someone (a) claims to be 13 years old, and (b) declares that they want to be part of the porn project, this is sufficient grounds to block, simply for bringing discredit to Wikipedia. If ChristianandJericho can't see that, he lacks the maturity necessary to be a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an edit war about the redaction of the comment above by Delicious carbuncle. The comment is so disturbing that I insist it stays redacted until the matter has been resolved. Hans Adler 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please leave it redacted. It has obviously been taken in a different light than intended. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was clearly sarcastic, but one needs to know you to see this. Sorry for bothering you. Hans Adler 16:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, you should probably stop nominating anything for deletion, except perhaps in the most obvious cases, until you get some more experience. You should refrain from making statements, such as that you are active on a pornography project, while simultaneously listing your age; this creates the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are seeking to provoke people or get attention rather than seriously edit. I also hope you will not be offended if I suggest that a reading of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, in either the original form I wrote it or its current incarnation, might be useful to you.

Delicious carbuncle, some of your comments above are not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I move that the user be indefinitely banned, it's obvious he isn't here to contribute within the rules, and given his previous history (No less than 5 blocks), it would be foolish to AGF as he will just throw it back in our faces. Colofac (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't say I agree with a minimum age restriction, since I've seen some users claiming to be middle and high school students, who are actually studying research techniques and grammar for a grade, handle that stuff better than some users who provided evidence they were university professors. In fact, based on my personal subjective experiances, the good university professors tend to be exceptions (the bad ones get banned for incivility over their WP:OR not being accepted, and the good ones realize their degree means nothing here). However, Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, so their laws do kinda apply here. There means there probably should be a policy of "no kids allowed" on the porn wikiproject. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, I agree that your suggestion of an age restriction on WikiProject Pornography (and possibly other WikiProjects) seems like an obvious and common sense move. I hope that a proposal of that action results from this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would mean that every editor would have to send a copy of their passport to the WikiMedia foundation to verify that they are old enough. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are a lot of websites that accept a representation from the user as to the user's age. Of course, this is a legal issue and should probably be evaluated by Wikipedia/Wikimedia's lawyers. As an aside, I'm not sure that the pornogrpahy project should be the ones deciding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any edits in WP:Porn because I have been busy, but the subject of pornography interests me (SUBJECT not content) --ChristianandJericho 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I bet a lot of 13-year-olds could say the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not wipe out my talk page, I archive it about 1-7 days --ChristianandJericho 16:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it interests you, you're 13.--v/r - TP 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you giggle when you see the boobies? I bet you do. Colofac (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, your interest in the subject pornography is entirely valid (despite the snide comments above). I have already been chastised for trying to make this point in a more subtle way, but let me spell it out - many of our article about pornography also contain pornography. While it may seem to be obvious what a "fluffer" does by simply reading, even this article contains an image which many people would say is not suitable for under-age editors due to the unexpected appearance of a penis. I hope you understand why people may be concerned about your self-professed interest in pornography topics. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Age verification would be impractical, but we could at least hold ourselves to at least the standards 4chan manages and ban people who admit they're under 18. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no age limit (or maybe it's 13+) for wikipedia, okay here's the deal

1. I stop tagging articles for deletion without a good reason. 2. I will contribute more to WP:Porn (you don't really care) --ChristianandJericho 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The only deal I will accept is your indef blocking. You have 5 previous blocks, the last of which should have resulted in an indefinite anyway - quite how you got around that is amazing. Colofac (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you think he should be indefinitely blocked? Also, what do you mean "deal"? This isn't a negotiation. I find it interesting that you've been here for a few weeks but are already calling for several members to be banned on flimsy premises. See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for reasons we actually do block. either way (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not up to you is it? --ChristianandJericho 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia as a whole has no age restrictions, Wikipedia's servers are located in the U.S. and so U.S. laws do apply here. U.S. law says "don't give kids porn." Wikipedia could get into serious trouble (social and legal) for allowing you be a part of the Porn WikiProject since you have admitted you are underage. Right now the debated options are:

A) You do not contribute to the Porn WikiProject

B) You do not contribute to the entire encyclopedia

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From a non admin perspective unless an age limit is set which it hasn't been for that project he hasnt done anything wrong there up to now. An age limit should be set and he shouldn't be allowed to edit within that area again until he is older. In terms of nominations for deletion more care is needed there and he should be discouraged until he is more competent. To me a ban as such isnt needed unless he chosses to ignore which he might. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer it is sensible, given draconian punishments, to run screaming away from anything involving kids and anything sexual. That being said, it isn't obvious to me he's breaking the rules. And he hasn't edited there, he has just declared himself part of that wikiproject. I would remind C and J that discretion is the better part of valor and he may be well advised to remove his claimed age from his user page and otherwise lie low for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that "U.S. law", whatever that is, were so simple as don't give "kids" (whoever they are) porn. The law at the federal and state levels on issues of sexually explicit materials and minors (who are defined differently by different laws) is far more complex than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do I think he should be indefinitely blocked? Well as User:Ian.thomson has pointed out, his exposure to such material is illegal, add onto this his repeated abuse, bans block log here and use of sockpuppets. Colofac (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What "material" is illegal to expose him to? The same material that anyone can look at on Wikipedia? Some hidden material? What law? And why should we "enforce" a non-existent age limit against him in particular, just because he chooses to admit his age? If he deserves a block, it's for other behavior but not about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at what I've posted, I've never actually advocated that he be blocked for claiming to be part of the Porn WikiProject. I said that there should be bans for anyone claiming to be underage. Bans are different, he would still be allowed to edit everywhere else. While anyone can go and look at any part of the encyclopedia, that's the parents'/guardians'/schools' problem. But by coming here and claiming to both underage and part of WP:Porn, we're open to at least a media campaign of "Wikipedia endorses minors working in Wikipedia porn!" All states define 13 as a minor. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should stay clear of stating legal principles ("All states define 13 as a minor"). Maybe you'd care to provide 50 sources for your statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I contribute to wikipedia as I have been given rollback rights for being a "trusted user" --ChristianandJericho 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, I was just starting to edit at the time of "sockpuppets" so and I only used on IP and one account and many users post their age on Wikipedia --ChristianandJericho 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not CandJ's parents or teachers. It is not our job to prevent him from what he chooses to do, and it is not illegal for a minor to join a porn wikiproject. I don't think he can be blocked or topic banned for being too young to edit in the area. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you know. If we are to put an asterisk on that, I think it takes a broader discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The porn project is a distraction from this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I became aware of this editor in June when they were a disruptive IP inserting BLP violations into articles. If I recall correctly the ChristianandJericho account was created to evade the block the IP had earned for edit-warring over one of those fake "you have new messages" boxes on their talk page. In my opinion this editor has improved since those days, but would still benefit greatly from a mentor, as they still have a ways to go in the competence and policy knowledge departments. Aside from completely missing the point in this thread (no, people aren't wanting you to get more involved in porn articles) there are head-scratchers like giving a final warning to an editor for having external links on their user page. Anyone willing to mentor this editor? This editor willing to accept a mentor? 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not me, but he says on his user page he is willing to be adopted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not lawyers, it is pointless and off-topic to speculate on such matters. 28bytes (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict)Wehwalt, does federal law not say that pornographic materials are not to be knowingly distributed to people under the age of 18? If it isn't, pretty much everyone outside of the legal system is fairly convinced it is. I fully acknowledge that we can ignore minor users who view or edit porn related articles. I said bans for people claiming to be under 18. I have never said we should do anything about people either claiming to be 18 or working on porn articles, but not both. If we know that he is under 18, and we know that his work is directed at the porn articles, we are knowingly providing an underage person access to pornographic materials. While individual users are not going to get in trouble directly, the site being in trouble does cause trouble for those who like to read and edit Wikipedia. If I am mistaken about the federal law, you still cannot pretend that this does not at least give the media a chance to get into a moralistic shitstorm. I am not saying he should be punished or retroactively punished. I would prefer that people quit associating me with that position. I am not saying he should not be allowed to edit the encyclopedia, just that we would be safer if we did not allow users to both claim to be underage and edit porn articles. We already place restrictions on who can edit what articles, which is why "anyone can edit" has been dropped from the logo. To draw an offline comparison: a bookstore which has porn can hire underage workers. If the underage workers look at porn on their own, the bookstore can claim they didn't know. If the underage worker volunteer to organize the porn section, wouldn't the bookstore open itself to being charged with knowingly distributing porn to a minor? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Addendum: I personally don't care if C&J works on porn related articles. He just needs to log out before doing so to cover Wikipedia's ass, so that Wikipedia's legal representatives can claim we didn't know he was underage. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) But then Wikipedia isn't in the business of distributing porn. An article about porn isn't porn. Count Iblis (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC) A number of articles contain images that can only be described as pornographic (and are only encyclopedic in context). Are you really willing to risk letting a judge figure out the difference between distributing porn for business purposes and distributing porn for encyclopedic purposes? A judge in a country where many states still have anti-sodomy laws and gay people aren't allowed to marry? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC) You really need to abandon your entree into the legal arena. So many of your statements are legally incorrect, and some of them are wildly incorrect. Your proposal about covering Wikipedia's ass (above) is particularly alarming.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave the legal argument to the WMF. Ian.thomson can email them if he is that concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Massive sock farm?

Try this internal search in user-space for "my background is in biology, with a main interest in snakes". See, for example, User:Alexis4567001112000, User:Shashankg1303, User:Nonayobusiness, User:Vojislavrad... and hundreds more.

Is this a giant stealth sock farm, or is there (just possibly) a more innocent explanation such as boiler-plate text being inserted by ACIP?

If the former, a mass-blocking, an SPI, and inspection of any edits made by those users, would seem appropriate. If the latter, we should use the edit filter to prevent accounts from being created with such clearly misleading boilerplate text in them. -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already been discussed and resolved here: [[51]] and [[52]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where it's resolved by an action to stop it from happening again. However warm and cuddly ACIP is meant to be, auto-spamming WP with bogus machine-created user pages seems not only pointless, but actively counter-productive. Could we at least mass-delete these user pages, since they contain bogus information that helps no-one, and no-one, particularly the users involved, seems to have ever read them? - The Anome (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I couldn't find out who maintains this ACIP software. They should certainly be told en-wiki doesn't want this snake infestation. One way to avoid this might be: (a) at MediaWiki:Customusertemplate-ACP1-welcomecreation, change the caption on the button from "Create my user page for me now!" to "Create my user page with the text above now!", and (b) keep this command button deactivated untill the user has actually changed the contents of the text box above. Unfortunately, the actual implementation of all this seems to be hidden in some program code I can't find. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The incantation '<div id="signupuserpagefillmagic"></div>' on that page is clearly where the stuff is getting inserted, aand then the trail goes dark -- as you say, it must be happening by some program code that is beyond our reach. -- The Anome (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Got it! It's in MediaWiki:Common.js -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I just took out the whole bit of example text from Common.js, just leaving the "replace this text with something about you"? -- The Anome (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The maintainer of this project is User:Hannibal. See also WP:VPR#Account Creation Improvement Project: Test results, one clear suggestion and some vague ones. MER-C 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message for him on his talk page: User talk:Hannibal#Misleading boilerplate text in user pages -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

THERE ARE TOO MANY SNAKES ON THIS FREAKING WIKI! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MUTHERFSCKING SNAKES ON THESE MUTHERFSCKING PAGES. EVERYBODY STRAP IN. I'm about to open some fscking windows. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"replace this text with something about you" is a fine alternative. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the code in common.js. In the meantime, we have almost 9,000 user pages that contain the exact same bogus text, most of which presumably have never even been looked at by their own users, let alone anyone else, and just serve to add confustion to Wikipedia. It would seem to me to be a good idea to delete all of these, excepting only those in which the boilerplate text has been altered, or which have been edited subsequently. Does this make seem like a reasonable course of action? -- The Anome (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting these user pages could be very confusing to new editors, who very likely would have a minimal understanding of the reasons and might think they did something wrong. Wouldn't it be better to have a bot go through and replace the boilerplate with a "replace this text" boilerplate using an un-bitey edit summary? VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds like a much better idea, and can easily be done by a bot. I'd be happy to do it with my bot, but I'm uncertain as to the best way to get this sort of one-off task approved without going through the entire bot-approval process from scratch: can anyone clue me in as to the best way to do this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be courteous to notify the ACIP folks that you're planning to do this... they may be able to offer some useful input as to what the "replace this text" boilerplate should be, or suggest an alternative approach. 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

repeat vandalism

Resolved

 – page protected by User:JaGa

Some unknown ips are doing repeat vandalism on Vellalar page since several weeks.Rajkris (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Future requests should be made at WP:RPP. It is generally faster there. Thanks, →Στc. 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)