User talk:Kendalandrew

Hello, Kendalandrew, and

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Kendalandrew, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kendalandrew! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Lubov Chernukhin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aigul Nuryieva is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aigul Nuryieva until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kendalandrew I have added projects Biography, Russia, Politics, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with the following policies:

Hello @PerpetuityGrat:, I have read the section and highlight the following: "Wikipedia is not censored" and that everything I put in was consolidated from and referenced to high quality sources such as the BBC, Guardian, Bureau of Investigative journalism, Charities Commission, Companies House, the Electoral Commission, the website of the Houses of Parliament, as such it was not original content and was fully cited to credible sources. It is also something that matters, indeed was the subject of a Parliamentary Enquiry the delay of release of the report almost triggered legal action. Many of the journalists I quoted are experts in this field.

If your argument is that: "You must not update pages that are owned by other contributors", then I set up the page for Lubov Chernukhin.

If your argument is that "what I have published is not important enough", then I ask why Robert Courts accepting cash from Lubov Chernukhin and property developers is not important but the (uncited) 'fact' he is "a member of St Martin's Church Parochial Church Council. He has been a member of the Churchill Centre for many years, and reviews books about Winston Churchill in the quarterly journal, Finest Hour. [and] ... is a blues guitarist and enjoys cycling, swimming, and hiking" is. which looks to me like a puff piece written by a supporter. Also, the fact that the BBC, Guardian, Bureau of Investigative Journalism think the matters I added are important may support the argument that it is.

If your argument is that "what I wrote was badly written", I highlight that many of the 'editors' just deleted paragraphs but failed to re-write the prior paragraph and as a result the article did not make sense. Surely the point of Wikipedia is that people edit things and make them better and keep them up-to-date is the point of Wikipedia. Just deleting blocks appears to be censorious rather than developmental.

If your argument is that I "do not listed to Editors" then I highlight that one of the editors stated that UK Companies House and the Charities Commission are not Reliable Sources. This is ridiculous and was unsupported, and other editors agreed. Which editors do I believe? Most importantly I amended the sections to try and address the (extremely badly defined) "issue". There is a broader question of "if an Editor deletes a section or paragraph without improving it and just cites a Wikipedia reference (which appears not relevant) without at least some guidance" what do you do?.

So the questions I have are:

1. Were the contributions I made on subjects of importance that were missing from the existing articles? 2. Was the quality of English and writing adequate? 3. Were the articles a consolidation of credible existing information from credible sources? BBC, Guardian, New York Times, Electoral Commission etc etc. 4. Were the contributions fully cited?

In addition: 5. If I remove the links to whom Lubov Chernukhin made contributions, would that make the article OK? If not, what would? 6. I thought Wikipedia did lists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists). How should I include the list in an acceptable way in this instance? 7. Is it not relevant that Brandon Lewis (A minister for security) accepted donations from Chernukhin? If so, what should I have done better? 8. Is it not relevant that Robert Courts was admonished by Parliament for misuse of public funds and had to repay them, or was one of 8 constituencies receiving funds from property developers in advance of major changes to planning rules (he is a Transport Minister), but it is relevant that he plays blues guitar? If so, what should I have done better?

There are two ways to approach a mater that involves multiple people with Wikipedia profiles, first is to set up a new Article (as I tried with Chernukhin), and the second is to put the information relevant to the person in their profile and link back. Both of which I tried to do.

9. What should I do to make this better? Or is what you are saying "this matter is not important enough" or "this matter is too difficult". Should I set up a separate article such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections 10. How is the ultimate decision made? Is it the case that Wikipedia is indeed censored? Publishing that a Minister accepted £18k from the wife of a former Russian Minister (cited to the Electoral Commission records) is not appropriate, but publishing the church they attend (uncited) is. Is it the case that Wikipedia is just a vehicle for politicians proxies to relay dog-whistle statements they feel will make them more electable, but not allow facts published by credible sources on significant issues (such as who they accept money from, support of the illegal proroguing of parliament etc).

It would be good to get some constructive guidance.

Kind regards

Kendalandrew (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI

section please. I have no quarrel with you, only your edits.

In short and in response to your ninth point, that's what I mentioned in my first comment in this section. You should find an article appropriate for the controversy and start from there. Also, please read this from Wikipedia is not censored: Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view). I hope this helps. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent original research and BLP violations on MP articles, unresponsive editor. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lubov Chernukhin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lubov Chernukhin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Viktor Fedotov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viktor Fedotov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in view of Pandora papers it seems that this guy is clearly notable. Do you want to re-create the article based on the coverage by RS like this? Alaexis_¿question? 08:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lev Mikheev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lev Mikheev until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand why your edits were mass reverted previously, right? Your most recent edit is an attempt to do the same thing you did before: use sources within an article to connect off-topic issues. Granted, some of the sources mentioned Courts name (most of the time once), but the other sources don't even mention him at all. They focus on Lubov Chernukhin. Take that information to that article, instead of trying to create a loose web of content, as myself and other users reported you for previously. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand. In an article that previously had (and still has) uncited references to Courts playing Blues Guitar and his church attendance, you took out references to matters of fact pertaining to how he voted on the environment (dumping of raw sewage in to rivers) and two major scandals (Cummings and Peterson), that he has been subject to sanction by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and that he has received funds from Property Developers and the wife of a former senior politician, as reported in the Guardian and BBC. So yes, I get the picture. Shall we term this 'blue washing'?

That content that you are referring to that is uncited is uncontroversial at its core. You did this before with several MP articles where you

attack pages. This is you doing the same thing again for whatever reason. And I don't know what "blue washing" is. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Saw this on my watchlist. TBH, I'm a bit concerned this same editor is continuing the same grudge against the same BLP, months after the previous episode of the same concerning behaviour, where feedback was provided on why this kind of editing is inappropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks for staying on top of this. I almost pinged you tbh. If the user re-adds the content to Robert Courts again, I'll ping you there, as I don't want to revert their edits a third time. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament report of 21 July 2020 (https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20200721_HC632_CCS001_CCS1019402408-001_ISC_Russia_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf) para 54. "Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties, with a public profile which positions them to assist Russian influence operations." Journalist and Russia expert Edward Lucas, who gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into Russian influence, told Panorama: "The Chernukhins, pleasant people that they might be… are not fit and proper people to make donations to a British political party." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-542280790)

The report: "Regulating Election Finance A Review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life" led by Lord Evans of Weardale who served as the Director General of the British Security Service, the United Kingdom's domestic security and counter-intelligence service, made a number of recommendation which have yet to be adopted and which had they been adopted may have prevented the current farce that is plaguing UK politics. Para 4.6 states: "Concern about foreign influence in UK politics has come to prominence in recent years. The publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s 2020 Russia report confirmed that Russia is using a range of methods to seek to disrupt and exert influence in the UK, including political financing and the spread of disinformation."

So concern as to the acceptance of political contributions from overseas, and particularly Russian sources, is a documented fact (including by the Guardian, Times etc), so it is surprising that the acceptance of funds by a politician (who sits on the APG for the Armed Forces) from the wife of a former Russian Deputy Finance Minister who appears to lack the funds to make over £2m of donations on her own account, and who is mentioned in the Pandora papers and numerous articles by the BBC and Guardian, is not seen as material in article that mentions his Blues Guitar and Church Membership (both uncited). This appears to me to be nothing but an attempt to cleanse what is undoubtedly true. Really?

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendalandrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Breaches of standards: There are 650 UK MPs. Since Courts was elected (2016-22) there were 80 breaches upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner of which 2 were Courts i.e. Courts has a hugely disproportionate representation in standards breaches for a former lawyer. One could argue that the breaches were non-material, but that was a decision for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, not a Wikipedia editor. In any event materiality is driven by quanta and nature, and the misuse of parliamentary paperwork is material as it is the misuse of parliamentary authority. https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/complaints-and-investigations/allegations-the-commissioner-has-rectified/rectifications-2021-22/

Courts then voted to reform the parliamentary standards process which the Prime Minster has subsequently admitted was flawed. This issue has caused enormous political fallout in the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/boris-johnson-admits-defending-owen-paterson-was-total-mistake

Environment: We only have one planet. The reason why Courts local paper (the Oxford Mail) reported Courts vote is that many local children have had DNV illness as a result of swimming in water courses after untreated sewage had been dumped in those water courses, and Courts had voted against banning that.

Funding of APPG: APPG’s are the next scandal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59307270 They are non-official bodies used by lobbyists and business to channel funds to MPs. Courts studied law and practiced as a personal injuries lawyer. Courts is “credited by the House of Commons library with helping to lead the "parliamentary pressure" that led to the announcement of the Ministry of Defence's Combat Air Strategy, the programme for the eventual replacement of the Eurofighter Typhoon” yet he never served in the military or qualified as an engineer. The fact that the APPG on which Courts sat was funded by Lockheed Martin UK, Northrop Grumman, Boeing Defence UK and Thales UK is therefore relevant. One of Courts parliamentary breaches pertains to the APPG.

Funding of constituency party: Lubov Chernukin is the wife of Vladamir Chernukhin, a former Deputy Minister for Finance under Vladamir Putiun and a former chairman of Vnesheconombank, a Russian state development corporation with reported close ties to the Kremlin security establishment. Mrs Chernukhin's wealth comes from her husband. Lubov Chernukin is not a constituent of Witney. Russian influence in EU, UK and US politics is a fact, and there are many papers that attest to this, but the Nature article summarizes the situation nicely https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0227-8. The BBC reported comments by Times Journalist and Russia expert, Edward Lucas, (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079) “The Chernukhins, pleasant people that they might be… are not fit and proper people to make donations to a British political party." Also, Courts has also received funding from property developers, which is sensitive at this point.

Evidence: All the statement were cited to credible sources such as the BBC, Guardian or Parliamentary Reports, they are not opinion, they are fact.

Relative importance: The current article includes “On 8 May 2019, Courts initiated and led a parliamentary debate on human rights in West Papua” and “Courts has been an outspoken critic of Early Day Motions (EDMs), describing them as "parliamentary graffiti". Courts has said that EDMs are generally tabled by MPs on behalf of "lobbyists or groups keen to show themselves as doing something", that they are "politically impotent" and a waste of taxpayers' money”.

The points I added relating to the APPG, the Cherhukihins, rulings by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and votes on environmental issues are clearly more relevant to someone interested in UK politics, or constituency matters, than what is there currently. What I put was not opinion, it was fact, and they are important facts from a UK and constituency perspective.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is as a result of a discussion at

WP:AE, but is not a formal Arbitration enforcement action. It is my individual decision as an administrator. You seem to have decided to focus on besmirching politicians that you do not like. Please rethink your approach to editing Wikipedia. Any unblock request must address your problematic editing specifically. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• The original discussion at AE can be found here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an ANI discussion where they used similar reasoning to explain their edits. In the above request, they included a primary document, then two sources that don't mention Robert Courts at all. They clearly did not understand the point of the ANI at all, bc they just resumed doing somewhat the same thing later on. Thanks to those who helped clear this up, bc the courts article was experiencing heavy disruptive editing. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]