Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Yu klose and WP:COMPETENCE

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Filter 390

Resolved

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

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

Leandrod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spam-only accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probable sock

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

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

User:Flagstaff1

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

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

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

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

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

Email address in an edit summary - bad practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User creating redlinks and redirects en masse

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

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

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

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

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

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

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

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

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

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

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

Discuss this

Complaint against Redthoreau: Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry

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

Complaint

I removed potentially contentious content sourced to a court document pursuant to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Redthoreau has twice restored this content [14][15] in spite of a warning I placed on his talk page [16]. What is bizarre is that he restored the improper source even though he was aware acceptable sources had been posted on the talk page [17]. 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 ([18]). 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)

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)

More admin eyes needed on Unblock-en-l

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks NYB, I have an intro letter for all of you if you can email me (my email is on my userpage, not posting here for spam reasons) with the subject exactly "request intro unblock" you should get an Automatic reply with my letter. This contains some info about the list for you. Thanks guys, -- DQ (t) (e) 07:01, 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 [19]. and gave some response here [20]. 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 [21].

Evidence of selective notification:

• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]

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)

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)

• 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)

Article or topic ban for two users (potentially three)

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)

User:Off2riorob (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" [29]. 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)
• I request that user Off2riorob 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)

• If I am banned, I would like to be given a reference to the specific WP policy that I have violated. I 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 3RR rule is not applicable for 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 would 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.
  • You have 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)
• 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)

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 [30] and [31]. User was warned for WP:NPA at [32]. 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)

Disruptive editing on Battle of Tali-Ihantala article

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

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

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

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

I did not make reverts but you keep on reverting and altering what I add to the article.[37][38][39]

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

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