User talk:Ola Tønningsberg

Welcome!

Hi Ola Tønningsberg! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Darren-M talk 23:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen volunteers on the side of Ukraine moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Chechen volunteers on the side of Ukraine, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬 19:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ola Tønningsberg. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Merab Dvalishvili, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 22:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cassiopeia:, his UD loss was supported by the article, if you look under the "mixed martial arts record" section, then you can see it's his first UD loss. In any case, I'll look for an additional source. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was your edit and it was unsourced, and I have added it - see here. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, read your message too quick and thought you were referring to the Petr Yan article I edited. Thanks for pointing it out. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if you need any assistance or any help edits regarding anything or MMA related articles, pls pop by talk page as I am here to help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Petr Yan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 23:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(Sextus Caedicius (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry to pester...

...but regarding the sockpuppet report you made about 10 days ago, do you think the editor who was reported here might be involved? CityOfSilver 19:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. Following my own investigation I've had my suspicion of this account being involved somehow. I've kept him out in good faith as he wasn't involved in my initial dispute. He seems to be involved in another dispute on another Chechen-Ingush related article after a quick glance at the report. If you take a look at my case, behaviour wise they are eerily similar. I'm going to check it out in a little bit. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it a little more. His edits are often in line with banned socks like Targimhoi. In another noticeboard incident where the editor was involved, targimhoi seemingly pops out of nowhere to express his support for him, despite never being tagged or mentioned.

The editor in your report and from my SPI case have several close connections to each other, editing same stuff within minutes on several occasions ex1; ex2. They also back each other in disputes despite never being tagged. This behavior seems to be persistent even now as wikieditor starts to edit on Nakh peoples which this user has a dispute in. I'm not aware of the details but it seems both are in a dispute over the article and it looks more like they are backing each other. There's more I could add here but I believe this is sufficient. They all seem connected somehow. What's your thoughts on this? Also @Rosguill since I see you're involved in that report and you suggested I make the SPI. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough of an overlap to warrant a CU check IMO, although it is possible that they just happen to share a POV. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap is often noticed on articles which have few views per day or even month, and it's often by mere minutes. I might add him to my SPI report later if there is any more suspicious behavior. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPI, ANI and more

My apologies for inadvertently giving you the bureaucratic runaround. My reasons for wanting this to go to SPI first is because behavioral analysis is messy, and particularly for a sockmaster with a long history of getting caught by CU-checks, I wanted to check that first before I spent an hour+ looking through their editing logs. I think I've about had my fill of this case for the day and thus won't be immediately looking into the OR and misrepresentation concerns at my own initiative any time soon (I did look at the most recent discussion at the Nazran raid article regarding "Ingush-Chechen victory" and while I don't agree with their position, I don't think it's totally outside the realm of reason such that it demands a ban). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill No worries, I wanted WE to be checked primarily because of his edit history. He has been involved in numerous edit wars, particularly regarding the Nazran raid article in the past year. He distorts his sources, especially when he argues for a "Chechen-Ingush victory" but tries to portray the Ingush participants as separate from the overall Chechen army. He removes the Chechen flag next to Taziev and separates the "Ingush Jamaat" from the Chechen armed forces, despite clear indications in his sources that they are under the subordination of Ichkeria. Despite my explanations, he still maintains his version in his sandbox draft, suggesting his intention to revert back to it in the future. He often promotes a nationalistic point of view, as seen in his edits to the Ingush people article, where he persistently adds a dubious source claiming the Ingush population is one million. Additionally, he has created at least three nationalistic articles which are now deleted, they were all criticized by the admins and other users for having weak sources but after checking a draft of one of the three articles i noticed that he misrepresented one of the sources where he again is POV pushing.

One question: what would obvious colluding look like to you? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious colluding would be someone declaring intent to brigade an article on social media; new accounts popping up with sudden, extensive knowledge of each others' Draft or User space; a consistent pattern of not just editing the same articles but following each other back and forth between articles without intervening edits to other articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, this does sound like something muqale and WE do even if we check just recently on the nakh peoples article, could you take a look at their overlap? I think their colluding can be demonstrated pretty easily. @Rosguill Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a chance(incidentally, have Muqale and WE been checked against each other? I'm not sure they have). But again, I think you'd have an easier time proving misuse of sources or tendentious editing for each editor individually, rather than proving that they are colluding. Because at the end of the day, that's the real problem: dishonest use of sources contrary to the intent of the project.

In general, I think that isolating problematic behavior and bringing content to RfCs is a better way to marginalize POV-pushers and improve the level of contributions. And, the centralized discussions more clearly highlight the beavior by the truly incorrigible POV editors who continue to attempt to disrupt the process. You also avoid the risk of eliminating all the tendentious editors from one POV slant only to have another slate take over. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Nakh peoples, yeah I think there's a concerning amount of overlap between Muqale and WE, although they don't seem to have overlapped participation on the talk page at all. I'll refer it to SPI. I don't think it's necessarily connected to Dzurdzuketi. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm not seeing it when examining their other editing histories in general. If you compare Muqale's early editing to WE in that same time period (Jan-Feb 2023), these look like editors with significantly different levels of understanding and ways of interacting with Wikipedia. Further, when they coincide on articles and butt heads with Goddard, they seem to generally do so by different tacks: at Fyappiy, the article WE was fighting over at the time Muqale's account was created and thus the most likely proximate attempt for sabotage if they were indeed colluding, WE tries to hijack-rename the article in the lead a few times; Muqale steps in weeks later to actually move the article. Now, could all of this be extremely devious coordination by a VPN user with a lot of time and energy to dedicate to covering their tracks? Pretty much--anything that I can think up as exempting evidence is something that they could have thought of too.. But at the end of the day, the problem isn't whether they're teaming up or not, it's whether they're using sources correctly. And if they're not, bring the receipts to me or AE. I think it does the topic a disservice to attempt to link everyone that has a Ingush POV-bent to a single account (which thus far has repeatedly been caught attempting to sock in a decidedly unsophisticated fashion, all while these other accounts have been active) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Although their overlap still suggests to me that there is some coordination. Even if it's the same POV their edits overlap in several articles under 1 hour. How often does one edit within mere minutes on the same article which has barely 1 view per day? once? maybe, twice? doubtful. I understand what you mean though. If we look at WE's edits on the articles where he has a dispute with me then Nazran raid is the perfect place to start if you want to see how he uses sources incorrectly. He has distorted 5 sources that do not even support his view at all, some of them even debunk his own claims.

Claim that "Ingush Jamaat should be mentioned independently from Ichkeria":

Source 1: "Russia's Islamic Threat By Gordon M. Hahn"

The source says nothing about Ingush Jamaat being separate from ChRi, in fact on page 50 the then ChRi president claims responsibly for the raid and basically says the raid happened in his newly formed "Ingush sector". Page 69 writes down the Ingush Jamaat as part of the "Ingush sector" which was previously mentioned.

Source 2: "Chechnya's Terrorist Network: The Evolution of Terrorism in Russia's North ... By Elena E. Pokalova"

Says nothing about Ingush Jamaat being separate, it does say on page 149 that Basayev appointed Taziev as the Emir of Ingush Jamaat a month before the raid yet again implying that Ingush Jamaat and Ali Taziev were subordinated to Chri.

Source 3:

Says nothing about Ingush jamaat being separate from ChRI.

Claim that "Ali Taziev was not subordinated to ChRi and that he shouldn't have a Chechen flag next to him"

Source 1:

Listed source does not make a mention anywhere that Taziev is separate from ChRi

Source 2:

Listed source like the previous one makes no mention of Taziev not being in ChRi

In my opinion this clearly looks like someone that tries to disassociate Ingush from the ChRi armed forces and Chechnya, and this is just 1 article. I have seen other cases as well and i haven't even looked through all of his articles. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the one hand I do see what you mean, and this is definitely at least a case of OR on their part. However, I do see that the sources make significant mention of the Ingush character of both the participants and Taziyev's work for the ChRI; meanwhile the article as-written just refers to the separatists flatly as "Chechens"--perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to the ChRI forces as "separatists" or Ichkerians rather than "Chechens". This becomes a question of WP:DUE and I don't know what the full balance is, but just from the sources here there seems to be some basis for such a characterization? Moreover, from what I can see, WE's POV is a bit more nuanced than wanting to dissociate the Ingush from the ChRI forces: rather, this seems to be someone who is trying to portray Ingush fighters as sympathetic to and represented in the ChRI and to present ChRI-aligned forces as a diverse, rather than a monolithically Chechen body. Can that POV still be tendentious? Of course. In this case, I think at most these examples on their own would rise to a level of a logged warning, depending on whether they recant when presented with a consensus from other editors. I'm going to hold off on issuing one unilaterally since my sense is that there will likely be more evidence to examine coming soon. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ingush participants are included in the article, their numbers aren't fully known what is known is that the "Ingush Jamaat" which Ali Taziev led was a unit of no more than 30 people. The unit wasn't even fully ethnic Ingush: source. The Jamaat or unit consisted of members from Ingushetia, Chechnya, Kalmykia, Kabardino-Balkaria and two Arabs. So we can't know exactly how many Ingush there were, what we know for certain is that the majority was ethnic Chechen according to the security forces of Russia: source. I have no objections on changing "Chechen" to "Chri" Victory, in fact I think it's a good solution (if it will stay that way). For me they are synonymous which is why I changed it back to "Chechen", which is how it was before. I could have agreed with the version that WE's POV just wanted the Ingush to have more representation if he didn't remove the ChRI flag from Taziev while claiming "he wasn't under Ichkeria at the time", as he did here while using sources that contradict him. He also removed the ChRi flag from Ingush Jamaat, here. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Mellk (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria 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/List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria 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 until the discussion has finished.

Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:38, 7 August 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian presence in First Chechen war

Hello @Ola Tønningsberg, I am Lemabeta. You are committing vandalism by deleting information backed by a number of references and sources; therefore, it would be advised to not undo the changes made by others. Thank you for the attention, i hope you have a good day. Lemabeta (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion

I made a few edits per your suggestion [1], but some of them were reverted. You are welcome to check and fix the page yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good job. They are a huge improvement compared to what was.I will take a closer look when I got some free time. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Great! My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]