User talk:Kolokol1

Welcome!

Hello, Kolokol1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Gurianova1ap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gurianova1ap.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Trepashkin.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Trepashkin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Dear Off2riorob, it is a mistake, it was not me, who reverted your post, but user deepdish7--Kolokol1 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your correct, please excuse me. I gave you one just so as not to be accused of one sidedness as to the issue but I agree with you in regard to your contributions - basically its a ping pong match in out in out.. and even if the man is accused of this and that he is still a living person and we need to have a NPOV well written well sourced article. with deepdish7 wanting to keep it as it is I see improving the article as not going to be easy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see deepdale is blocked for a week - during this time some discussion of the content and the sources can happen on the article talk page so that when he returns thee is some focus as to the problems with the current content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can have a good article with or without disinformation efforts, because the facts speak for themself and are easily verifiable. I am working on this at the talk page--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, way to go. Looks like some progress towards article improvement at last. From what I have read, some sections could use a fair bit of NPOV rewriting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you consider endorsing the sandbox porposal for the Berezovsky page, pls? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Sub_page_.28sandbox.29_idea_for_testing_revised_outline --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have an hour to look at it in depth tomorrow afternoon/evening. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subpage

Hi Kolokol1,

How do I find the subpage to look at it? I have forgotten what it is. I need a link. Why not here? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to do two things:

1. Leave the subpage where it is until you can get back

2. Go into the edit of the main article and save the whole edit or the whole article on a word processor. In that way, if the article gets heavily vandalized you will have an easy record what it was like. Also, remember that other editors of good will may work on it while you are away. It could get confusing, but at least you will have a record.

I am very involved in attempting to save an article from deletion and can't offer much editing energy at the moment. But I will be pleased to give some quick thoughts. Also I have learned about the help me mechanism. There is a team of admin helpers who respond quite quickly. Why not, on this talk page, set up a new section. Clearly identify your questions for them and then put this at the top of the page without the spaces except between the two words. eg. { { h e l p m e } } Cheers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DonaldRichardSands,

The link for the revised article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/new Thanks for taking a look. From what you wrote above, I understand that you do not mind replacing the old version with the revised text on the main page. I would very much want to get other editors of good will involved. All best--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more accurate to say, the revised outline seems to resolve the sensationalist approach of the old version. However, and this is what will take the time, the old version does have merits which should not be lost. There is an energy among some people to show that Berezovsky is a mafia-like boss. When I told a friend about Berezovsky and the accusations of his involvement as such a boss and how I would like to email him and ask him to donate a picture for the article, my friend expressed shock and dismay that I would risk my life so. The article needs the balanced outline of the revised version but should deal with both sides of the view of him. This balance is what takes the time. I would enjoy helping. Your energy for the article is obvious. If we could get an editor who wants to portray Berezovsky as a mafia boss to agree to the balanced outline and then to enter some careful rules of collaboration, the article could strengthen quickly. In the article I am working on presently, one other editor is active and he is very critical. But, he and I have finally agreed to work with the talk pages and to talk more civilly with each other and things are progressing much better. Similar cooperation could happen for the Berezovsky article. Rely on Secondary Sources. Insist on a conservative, scholarly examination of all aspect of Berezovsky's life. And, yes, I still want to email him, ask him for a picture, and perhaps go for coffee. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear DonaldRichardSands, thank you for your input. Of course, Mr. Berezovsky is a highly controversial person, and I think, all these controversies are reflected in the revised text. But he is a major figure, who influenced Russian political history over two decades, and his biography deserves professional approach not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the whole Russia block on Wikipedia. With respect, the belief of "some people" that Berezovsky is a mafia boss is an opinion, which is not supported by facts. If an opinion is poorly sourced and potentially libelous, it has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of how many people may hold it. Otherwise we should change the rules and make Wikipedia a collection of opinions supported by a majority vote. Under current rules, we should work with well sourced facts. The facts in this matter are as follows. (1) That particular opinion has originated from a single source (Mr. Klebnikov), whose antisemitic bias has been noted by three respectable independent sources. (2) The publication (Forbes), which printed his opinion has unequivocally retracted it as lacking any evidence in a libel court hearing. (3) Dozens of profiles of Mr. Berezovsky in major world newspapers, which adhere to the standards of fair and responsible journalism - including serious Russian sources - do not repeat these allegations. I believe that Wikipedia should adhere to the same standards. The revised article states the sourced facts as they are: there was an opinion voiced, which was then discredited. Of course, if anyone can quote another reputable source, which supports this opinion with evidence, it should be mentioned. Since I am going on vacation, I have put the revised text on the main page, and leave it for the community to compare it with the previous version (which can be accessed via History tag), amend, challenge and comment - as long as it is done by the rules. The last thing I want is another edit war. On the other hand, seeking consensus is just one of Wikipedia rules. Avoiding pushing opinions, and removing unsourced slander is another.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Report the controversy: You may already be doing this. When a controversy exists among a significant group of people, report on the controversy. You mention Klebnikov. Be sure to include in your article a paragraph that reports what Klebnikov has said. Use solid secondary sources to report his role in the Berezovsky story. Keep balance. The first article seemed all about the controversy. Don't ignore the controversy. Report objectively. Try to stand back from your strong feelings and just report what your third party sources are contending. And, get a good picture of Berezovsky, if you can. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. But this is exactly what I, and another editor, have done:--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berezovsky's meteoric enrichment and his involvement in political power struggles has been accompanied by allegations of him belonging to the criminal world from his opponents. After his falling out with Putin and exile to London, these allegations became the recurrent theme of official state-controlled media, earning him comparisons with Leon Trotsky^[1] and the Orwellian character Emmanuel Goldstein.^[2]. While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is that of an incarnation of evil, "the most hated man" in Russia^[3].

In 1996 Forbes, an American business magazine, published an article by Paul Klebnikov entitled 'Godfather of the Kremlin?' with the kicker 'Power. Politics. Murder. Boris Berezovsky could teach the guys in Sicily a thing or two.'[94] The article, which Klebnikov subsequently expanded into a book (see below), fulfilled the promise of these phrases by linking Berezovsky to corruption in the car industry, to the Chechen mafia, and to the murder of Vladislav Listyev. The decision of Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov to sue for libel in London raised questions about the jurisdiction of the UK courts, but the case slowly proceeded until the claimants opted to settle when Forbes offered a retraction.[95] The following statement appended to the article on the Forbes website summarises: 'On 6 March, 2003 the resolution of the case was announced in the High Court in London. FORBES stated in open court that (1) it was not the magazine's intention to state that Berezovsky was responsible for the murder of Listiev, only that he had been included in an inconclusive police investigation of the crime; (2) there is no evidence that Berezovsky was responsible for this or any other murder; (3) in light of the English court's ruling, it was wrong to characterize Berezovsky as a mafia boss; and (4) the magazine erred in stating that Glouchkov had been convicted for theft of state property in 1982.[96]

What else could be said?--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hope you won't object against my copying this discussion to the article talk page? All best--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Berezovsky

Hi. I made some technical edits to Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please have a look and notice that on Wikipedia we 1. do not use capitals in headers of sections after the American fashion 2. references are placed after punctuation. Thank you for your attention to these details, and keep up the good work. 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Also, I am missing in that article a section "Personal life". Articles about people almost always have such a section, especially such a large and detailed article like this one. It should contain some information about parents, religious beliefs (which might be the subject of a separate section in this specific case), wifes and (girl-)friends importantly (just that such information should be reliably sourced), charitable activities. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berezovsky

Hi. Please stop edit-warring with Deepdish7. Even though technically reverts of BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR, different admins may have different views on what consitiutes a BLP violation, so you are risking to be blocked. And there is no need to hurry. Colchicum (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks, stopped already. I am referring the matter to BLP Noticeboard--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These guys ask everyone about possible connections with Berezovsky [1]. Do not pay attention. Biophys (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but the truth is that I am in a way connected, so I thought it would be right to declare it, and continue from that standpoint. Certain things are better said from the position of a wronged subject of BLP, than an outside observer.--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply knowing someone in real life does not create the COI. I edited several pages related to scientists I know, and no one objected (this is not related to Russian politics of course). Furthermore, having a COI is not a problem per se. It only becomes a problem when it leads to obviously biased editing and conflicts with other people. Please try to minimize your comments at ANI because they might be regarded as "disruption". Simply edit some content and Ignore all dramas. Biophys (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stop commenting at ANI. You may be blocked for doing this [2]. Biophys (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Hello Kolokol1. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Boris Berezovsky, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Due to your username, there is a real concern that you may have a conflict of interest in relation to Boris Berezovsky and associated articles. Having looked at your editing history, it is connected entirely to articles related to this subject, and your username could indicate that you are connected to a Berezovsky-funded entity. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to declare it, and refrain from editing directly any articles within the area of any COI. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have declared my association with the subject of this BLP, and acknowleged COI in this matter in WP:COIN#A Response, where I also explained why it does nor disqualify me from editing, as per current BLP guidelines--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

It is inappropriate to make substantive changes to a post on a forum after others have already replied. See WP:REFACTOR. You can make changes before, and you can make very minor changes, like correcting typos, after. If you wish to make substantive changes, you can use html strike commands to strike out your previous text. Otherwise, replies from editors will not make sense because they will have responded to your original wording, not your changed wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, sorry -- heat of the debate. What specifically you have in mind? Will try to correct.

It's not a big problem, just wanted you to know why I reverted your changes. I noted afterwards you made one more change, but I let it go because, although substantive, it wasn't a big deal. I don't follow your question about correcting anything. I wasn't suggesting there were things you should be correcting, just pointing out policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I see, ok, never mind--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is perfectly fine to refactor your own comments anywhere if you feel they are inappropriate for any reason. On the other hand, reverting edits of another editor on a talk page (as Bbb23 just did [3]) to restore questionable comments about living persons is wrong and against the rules. Biophys (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context." "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I have seen other editors use this guideline precisely for the same reason I did, that removing and changing even one's own text can destroy the context of subsequent comments by other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolokol, the correction you just made to one of your posts at ANI is precisely the kind of correction that is permissible as it doesn't change the substance of what you said earlier, it just corrects the number of the noun (essentially a typo). Just thought you might like a positive example.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop refactoring. With great difficulty, I have backed out some of the changes you have made to the discussion at ANI. You added subsection headers in the middle of discussions that had already taken place, and, more egregiously, you added something to MY comment. Do NOT do this again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did not modified anything except adding a neutral header ("discussion"). But yes, altering another editor posts may be a blockable offense [4]. However, refactoring your own comments is usually fine (in fact, I never saw anyone objecting this).Biophys (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 "something" I added to your comment? I don't think I did. Please provide diff. Thanks --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not necessary (and often not helpful) to answer every single comment around. Let them speak for themselves. Na kazhdyj chix ne nazdravstvueshsja, as they say. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Of course you are right. As I said on the ANI, I heed to Biophys' advise and rest my case. This subsectioning was supposed to be my last contrib, and -- here you are. Amazing!--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bbb23, for accepting my explanation that an insertion of gibberish into your post (diff ) was inadvertent and probably caused by an equipment glitch--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still laughing at your recent change to the translation of the comment about Black Kite. Now, there's a refactoring I can support. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice re ANI

A discussion concerning you has been initiated at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be very careful with your comments. There was another user who was telling something similar [5]. Where is he now? Banned at English and Russian wikipedias. It's OK if someone asks me such questions [6]. Do not ask others. Biophys (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. But, as they often say in nowadays Russia "power is in the truth" (сила в правде) :-). Why should I be careful if I know that I am right? I am new here, but I find WP body of law a remarkable mechanism, which really should work. If there is hidden malice in a particular person, it will eventually show itself. However, in order for this to happen, you have to engage him in a dialog, in good faith and assuming good faith. This is what I am trying to do. Overreaction is usually a sign of guilty conscience. However, if someone acting in good faith - as I do - ends up kicked out of here for asking a legitimate question, it would be a disappointment, but not a great loss for me Cheers.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you good luck in engaging all people who edit in this area in a dialog and asking them legitimate questions. Two points. (1). There is no freedom of speech on wiki. Everything you say can and will be used against you. Do not tell anything at all beyond explaining your edits at article talk pages. (2) There is no law on wiki. We have 3RR rule, but people can be blocked or banned for making even one revert. Also see Wikipedia:Truth. Biophys (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we shall see. If you were right, for a guy like me (with COI and all) to get an article like Berezovsky right, and have a disruptive editor banned in the process would be an impossible task. Yet, it appears that just this is about to happen -- with all the inadequacies that you've mentioned. Which means that the system works. All the more so if the conspiracy of the forces of darkness that we sense but cannot prove really exists :-)--Kolokol1 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can agree with this revert made after your 55 edits [7], then yes, you will be able editing this article. Biophys (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this kind of revert would withstand any serious scrutiny. There are so many violations of NPOV and BLP here.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC). The paradox is that a self-declared connected party like myself is trying to set the record straight, whereas a seemingly unconnected party, such as Russavia is trying to confuse the record, acting with apparently sincere but totally misguided zeal.--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I personally believe that Deepdish7 version was essentially an attack page: it combines all published accusations about a person (some of the accusations were made by notorious personalities like Kadyrov), repeats the same accusations several times (e.g. 2 million to Basayev) and presents these accusations as undeniable. Not mentioning the blatant copyright violations in his version (whole paragraphs were copied ward to word). But the fact remains: his version was restored by an administrator who knows this subject and suppose to enforce the BLP policy. Something to think about. Biophys (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hodja, I'm having trouble following you here. Which version was restored by whom? My recollection is that Deepdish's version was backed out by several of us and then there was the first lock by Black Kite. Then, there was a lot of editing by a lot of people (I wouldn't call that Deepdish's version, although parts of it were his edits), followed by the current lock by Black Kite, but with no change to the version that was in place before the lock (the last edit had actually been Kolokol's). So, what are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about version in the right part of this diff (same diff as above). It includes a copyright violation (as discussed at article talk page) and fails our BLP and NPOV standards in my opinion, although others may disagree. Sure thing, Deepdish7 was only one of contributors; I called it "his" version simply for convenience. Biophys (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hodja. I can't quite follow the version Alex reverted to, but at least I now understand what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary relevant here, but I saw an interesting discussion of COI question at ANI ("Wikipedia experts"). The consensus seems to be as follows. It is perfectly fine if someone declared his COI and edits in accordance with WP policies. But it is very bad if someone has a conflict of interest, did not declare this conflict, and violate our policies by conducting COI-driven POV-pushing. I am sure we have many editors who belong to the second category and edit in this area, but Kolokol1 is certainly not one of them.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hodja. But I have another question for discussion. There is a clear distinction between COI in the sense that someone stands to personally gain from a particular line prevailing, and advocacy, which, I understand, means pushing a particular POV from an ideological position. I am in the grey area here: I am certainly not paid for this, and not controlled by the subject, but I know him personally and wish him well. To be on the safe side, I decided to declare COI. Now consider another editor who may not have COI, but from his/her editing, he/she is clearly an ideologue quite often at the expense of NPOV. His zeal, whatever the motivation behind it, could be much more harmful than any COI. How to deal with that? If you are too harsh in enforcing NPOV you risk cutting off some of the most knowlegeable editors, because few people are capable of studying a controversial subject without taking a side--Kolokol1 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1. Simply knowing someone and wishing him well does not mean COI. Everyone knows a lot of people. Question 2. Yes, this is major problem. You might look at this essay or this essay. If you mean R., please see this suggestion. I think that a knowlegeable editor who contributes a lot of new nontrivial content on a variety of different subjects (unlike you, sorry) should never be banned or topic banned longer than a month from the area of their main interest. All such editors are highly dedicated to the wikipedia project, whatever their bias might be, and therefore more or less reasonable when it comes to negotiations. But unfortunately, even such editors are banned on a regular basis when it comes to serious or long-term problems (see User:Altenmann and User:HanzoHattori, for example).Biophys (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing someone may create a conflict. It depends on the how well the editor knows the subject. See WP:COI ("Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.").--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not. I edited several articles related to people I know (not in this area), and no one objected. Speaking about Kolokol1, I can see only one indication of potential COI: he edits only one article right now. I would strongly recommend him to also edit something else, whatever he likes. I think that biased editing driven by political views (e.g. as described by Moreschi) is a much bigger problem than COI-biased editing. Some editors who work in Biology area (including myself) have a certain degree of COI, which only helps them to contribute and causes no problems. Speaking about EE mailing list members with whom I had a lot of informal talk by email, only one of them had a COI since he promoted an article about himself. Speaking about other people in EE area, I do not really have any evidence about their motifs. It might be that some of them have a strong pro-Soviet bias. Or it might be that some of them are paid editors who did not declare their COI. Does it really matter? Biophys (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the bottom line: you still can not edit this article. You thought that the problem was Deepdish7. He is gone, and little changed. You possibly think that another user is a problem. But even if he is banned or topic banned, you still will not be able editing this article as you wish. Same with any other articles that are considered important and undermine Putin's administration (Litvinenko, apartment bombings, etc.) or Soviet version of history (Holodomor, Gulag, etc.). You might wish editing something else to avoid the trouble. Biophys (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify: by "you cannot edit", you mean that my editing is prohibited by WP policies, or that disruptive behavior by others would make it impossible as a practical matter? To the first statement I would say, "it is not true", to the second: "we shall see about that". :-)--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hodja, could you please clarify what you mean by "any other articles that are considered important and undermine Putin's administration", etc.? You seem to be implying that Wikipedia is creating an impediment to editing certain articles for political reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolokol1. I mean impossible as a practical matter (unless you edit something relatively unimportant [8], make technical edits, or edit according to the most recent version by the Ministry of Truth - [9]). Of course you are welcome to try, at your own risk. @Bbb23. The impediments are created by organized groups of users; this is something like collective ownership coming from WP:Consensus. Yes, this is all for political reasons in "political articles" (unlike in articles on Biology or Chemistry subjects). Biophys (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Kolokol1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grigory Kheifets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist University. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Abraham Kheifets (August Guralsky)

Hello, Kolokol1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Abraham Kheifets (August Guralsky), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Abraham Kheifets (August Guralsky)

Hello, Kolokol1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Abraham Kheifets".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.barricades.ca/articles/3_2/Boris_Berezovsky.htm

[2] ttp://www.russiajournal.com/node/4816

[3] "Russia's 'most hated' tycoons" BBC News 8 April 2003

[1]

[2]

[3]