This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
It seems fairly apparent that there was a dispute over the use of material from another wiki that was not sourced. It would be normal here when sources are requested for facts that you should consider providing at least one citation per paragraph, and I can see that you made a start on that. If you intend to add sources that verify the second and third paragraphs of Early Life and the first six paragraphs of Career, then your best course of action would be to either:
Write a polite note on User:Bishonen's talk page explaining that you want to add the missing sources to bring the dispute to an end, and asking for the full protection to be lifted.
In the latter case, it would be helpful if Ymblanter were to add their support to removing protection. Obviously, whenever the protection expires, both of you will not renew any edit-warring, as that would rapidly result in full-protection again (and we really do want our articles to be edited). Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion
There is no dispute, Ymblanter is just on his usual Power Trip, rubbing his administrative powers in everyone's face and knocking us ordinary mortals left and right. Because why not, its not like anyone is going to stop him.--Damianmx (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I offered WP:3O. Now I think an RfC on user conduct is in order after which ArbCom can decide whether this behavior is acceptable. Curro2 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I count over 30 unsourced facts in the protected version of this article. There is no suggestion that any of these are false, but our policies require them to be verifiable, and they therefore need reliable sources to support them. If that isn't obvious, consider how could we guard against a vandal who deliberately changed a date? Change it back? What if they revert again? How is anybody to determine which is correct without a source? So please, pretty please with sugar on it, let's get some reliable sources to verify the content, and concentrate on improving the article. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's great ....except no one disagrees with that and that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. When did anyone say they were satisifed with the sourcing? You need to look at the article page history. The translated material came after the ANI-3RR report. Curro2 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding those citations. I noted that you had made a start in my original comment, and I'd like to encourage you to continue doing so. If you want to, you can copy text from the article to a section here and add the reference. It will then be a trivial task to copy that into the article when the protection is lifted. Showing an enthusiasm for working on the article is one of the fastest ways of getting protection lifted. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. From the protecting admin: "Would you consider explaining to him that, and why, he cant copypaste from the Belarus wikipedia without any references, even if that doesn't have to do with the edit war?" [1]. Please try to accept that the protecting admin is probably the likeliest person to know why she protected the page. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with removing protection. Note that Curro2 introduced false info in the lede (that Kobyakov was the deputy PN between 2003 and 2010), which needs to be removed. Other additions need to be sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it is unsourced as well, so it accidentally might be correct, but it contradicts to the rest of the article which says Kobyakov was deputy PM since 2000 until 2010. Russian Wikipedia seems to agree but does not provide sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes - your link says very clearly that he was the deputy PM since 2001, not since 2003. And between 2000 and 2001 he was the First Deputy PM.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You link says very clearly that Kobyakov was a deputy PM continuously between 2000 and 2010. Every single minute. Well, between 2000 and 2010 he was the First Deputy PM, if we want to single this out, but still a deputy PM. This means that the statement that he was a deputy PM in any subset of this period (for example, from 2003 to 2010, or from 2005 to 2006, or from 2004 to 2007 or whatever) is technically correct. However, what a Wikipedia article should state in the lede that he was a deputy PM between 2000 and 2010 (or that he was First Deputy PM between 2000 and 2001 and subsequently Deputy PM between 2001 and 2010). Stating that he was a deputy PM between 2003 and 2010 is false.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. He was First DPM under Yermoshin from 2000-2001. He briefly left the council in 2001. In 2001 he was brought back as a demoted DM under Novitsky, serving from 2001-2002. He then left the Council and served as the Economy Minister from 3 July 2002 to 24 December 2003. He was brought back as DPM in December 2003. The continuous, uninterrupted period was from 2003-2010. One can certainly argue that the lede is insufficient. You however, claimed he was never DPM. It's difficult to take that back now. It's difficult to believe you. Curro2 (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to believe me. You are required however to obey Wikipedia policies. You brought a bunch of unsourced statements and stuck them into the article even though they contradict each other. Now it is your responsibility to source and rectify it, not mine. You were told by many users what are the best practices, but you prefer not to listen. Fine, congratulations. You are on your way to block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right....... Please do clarify though, are you still claiming that he was not DPM? Are you going to remove that after the protection is lifted? I would really prefer that you not remove it now that you acknowledge he was DPM. Curro2 (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is incorrect and can not stay in the article. The correct statement would be, for example "held a deputy PM position on several occasions between 2000 and 2010" - provided what you say above is correct; it obviously needs to be sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well... to clarify, it is correct. It just doesn't fully encapsulate his career. Sure, you can have that as the lede. I really look forward to more productive talkpage discussions with you. I think we've made some real progress here. Curro2 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not correct. It is false and wrong. It is as correct as to say that you have left eye. (Technically, this is correct, but you also have the right eye, which makes it two eyes). Would you please invite another user who can read with you what I have written and hopefully help you to understand the meaning. I give up at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm..... I'm pretty sure it's right and multiple references have been provided. Although if you do dispute the EABR (Eurasian Development Bank) and the government's official biography, I am interested in alternative theories for what he was doing from 2003 to 2010. Certainly, if you feel the lede is insufficient, I have no problem with you editing the page right now. Also, given your commitment to sources, feel free to remove any content you feel is insufficiently sourced. Curro2 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the RIA source you provided does it say he was continuously DPM. Perhaps you meant to post another source? Also, in the EABR source currently being cited in the article, it says he resigned in September 2001 so... yeah... Curro2 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yes it does. "On 21 September 2001 resigned with the rest of the Belarusian Cabinet."[3] I can see how you missed that though. I assume you did not see it. Also, "2002-2003: Minister of the Economy of Belarus" seems to imply that he was the Economy Minister -not DPM- from 2002 to 2003. Again, I can see how one could miss this. Curro2 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says "В 2002-2003 годах — заместитель премьер-министра — министр экономики Белоруссии." It is very clear and unambiguous as far as I am concerned. Concerning his resignation, well, the government resigned in September 2001 - and what? Who became the new Deputy PM in your opinion?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He changed positions. There's only one First Deputy. Somehow I think you are as tired of this back and forth as I am. Can we acknowledge there's nothing terribly substantive in dispute at this point? I would like to go do other things with my time. This has gotten... terribly boring. Curro2 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
