Jump to content

User talk:Russavia/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

New HRF articles

I've just had to add a notability tag to a Tatar Russian pilot stub you've created. (I really appreciate and applaud your drive on the HRFs, by the way). The only indication that he was awarded the Hero of the Russian Federation is in one of the categories. Please add a description of for what he was awarded the HRF otherwise one pilot of so many is of unclear notability. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Konstantin Umansky

Updated DYK query On August 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Konstantin Umansky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Locator maps

Oh, no problem, though I'm not to happy with the result - SO is too tiny to be seen very well on the world map. I noticed a script on the blank map I've used that allows to autogenerate bilateral maps, cropping it if necessary. I'll be away for the rest of the week, but when I'm back, I'll try to play with it. Hopefully, I can produce a map for Abkhazia and a better one for SO. Cheers! Óðinn (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Smirnov

Hand slipped? Or an anti-Russian conspiracy?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:05, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

  • Oops, hand slipped. No really, it was all part of a big conspiracy hatched in a secret location in the undergrounds of Moscow. Of course, you know, you now know too much and we will have to take you out. --Russavia Dialogue 06:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

About valid forks

Since the consensus in the recent AfD discussion was, that articles such as Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia are legitimate, I created User:Offliner/Georgian atrocities against the South Ossetian people. I see no reason why this would not be legitimate as well, by the same logic. I thought long and hard about the article title; I guess "atrocities" is the most general and will allow the greatest scope, although "Genocide" or "Ethnic cleansing" would probably be more neutral. Do you think this should be posted to mainspace? It would be valid per Alex Bakharev's arguments as well, since it includes the Georgian atrocities in the first war. Offliner (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As i mentioned at the afd it is a legit topic. I guess the name is the main thing. Perhaps keep it the same as the georgian article, that being ethnic cleansing. I an using internet on my mobile phone at present and wiki does not display properly, but if u can wait couple days, i can take a look at it and afd information from various sources that i have collected over the time. That good for u? Cheers, Russavia Dialogue 05:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosvinsky Mountain

Do you know anything about this subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Russia relations

is now redirected. surely these 2 countries have very notable relations.search in English [1], and I reckon a whole lot more in Russian as well. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

other redirects of former Soviet republics that I'm sure have notable relations [2] and [3]. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I found another one [4], I've now reverted it. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Russia relations

is now redirected. surely these 2 countries have very notable relations.search in English [5], and I reckon a whole lot more in Russian as well. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

other redirects of former Soviet republics that I'm sure have notable relations [6] and [7]. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I found another one [8], I've now reverted it. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, Well, I am glad that the editor who was asking for you to be booted a couple of days ago, LibStar, is now your close ally.

Russavia, I have never put a single one of these bilateral articles up for deletion. LibStar has stated repeatedly, more than once that he has deleted 150 of them. I have fought for these articles repeatedly to not be deleted, more than once, with LibStar arguing that they should be deleted.

Let me pull out the list of Russian articles which LibStar has put up for deletion.

By redirecting these articles to parent articles, I am not questioning their validity to be on wikipedia, nor their notability, nor their relevance. In fact, if I had a choice, everyone of these articles would be kept without being redirected. My view is this: Libstar and editors like him will continue to delete these articles, hundreds more. By redirecting them until an editor undoes the redirect and adds sources to these articles, I am stopping the disruption and the deletion battles, created by Libstar and editors like him.

When Libstar thinks an article is not relevant, he often gets it completely deleted off of wikipedia, and he will often fight strongly for its deletion. When I feel an article will be put up for deletion, I simply redirect it, and the past history remains. Which is worse? A temporary redirect, or the complete deletion of the article as Libstar has done 150 times?Ikip (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

seems Ikip wants to WP:BATTLE. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Stating facts is not WP:BATTLE Libstar. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
AfDs are an accepted process. I know you don't like them, perhaps you should argue for removal of this process of Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Libstar, did you ever notify Russavia about the most recent ANI against him? I know you never notified me about the redirects, which is not required but a courteousy, but you never notified Russavia, which is required.
When I list all of the Eastern European articles you put up for deletion, how will you explain it to Russavia?
We are not talking about the legitamcy of all AFDs, we are simply talking about your AfDs in particular. Ikip (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh good, Russavia did know about it, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive559#Russavia_again BTW, I came here because Russavia angerly reverted one of my redirects, it looks like after you have been encouraging him. Ikip (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE. keep it up. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Message

I left you an answer at Wikipedia_talk:Danish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Russian_offices_in_Denmark. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Russian people

Thanks for tagging my new category- was getting around to it before too long! Category talk:Lists of Russian people may be of interest, it is a bit messy. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)).

Speedy deletion nomination of Marat Alykov

A tag has been placed on Marat Alykov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Skajnowski

What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirected bilateral articles that may have lots of Russian sources?

I'm not sure about these redirects.

LibStar (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[LATER than thread below] Per my message below in the "List" section, I reverted about half of these redirects (the other redirects were reverted by others), please watchlist all of these pages, and let me know if you need help if they are deleted. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Privet Russavia, maya jena Ukrankia. Ya jel Odesso dva goda. Ochin lablyu Ukrania.
keep in mind what I said above, and how many Russian articles LibStar has put up for deletion. The edit history of these redirected articles is intact, when LibStar successfully deletes these articles they are gone forever. I would love to merge all these articles into one article, as some other editors and I were doing, but it takes an hour or two for each country. I can show you how to do this, if you like, using Foreign relations of Argentina, which I merged countries into, as an example. Ultimately I would like all foreign relations articles to look like Foreign relations of Argentina, but it is extremely hard when editors like LibStar continue to delete these articles.
LibStar just put two more "relations" articles up for deletion today, one he had previously put up before. He has refused to stop deleting articles, to give editors time to merge these, even though editors by a 21-14 margin supported a short stop in deleting articles.
I can show you evidence of all this on request.
Remember, LibStar has shown a history of deleting numerous Russian relations articles.
Spaciba e shetliva. Ikip (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with continually nominating, any article cannot be nominated as per AfD? your WP:ADHOM attacks continue. I believe all of the above should have standalone articles. If you continue this way of trying to dissuade me and others, I will report you. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
LibStar, what is factually incorrect in what I wrote? You continue to claim I am attacking you? What did I write which was factually incorrect? Stating your edit history is not a personal attack. Ikip (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It is the manner and tone of your comments and continual WP:ADHOM comments about me. and using article and user talk pages to WP:BATTLE about me. 21-14 margin is not consensus, (you're thinking of a vote) consensus needs a large majority. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:ADHOM applies to AFDs. I am glad we can all agree the material is factually correct. I just hope Russavia understands the situation and history fully. I have a paper to put out tomorrow, so this is it for me on this page. Good night. Ikip (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

really...so you're not motivated about my previous nominations to comment on my actions. I'd appreciate if you tone it down. most of your redirects I actually don't oppose but please be careful with some that have previously gone through AfD. I would say anything with a land border should have an article. and let's not flood other users talk pages with this. catch you later. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

even better, I did not understand why Lithuania–Russia relations had to be redirected in the first place. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say anything with a land border should have an article. Agreed, I will be more careful from now on. Ikip (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List

I just saw your message on the bilateral page. Here are the last of the Russian articles I was going to merge, but won't now. Please, please, please add these articles to your watchlist, because the same small group of editors will inevitably attempt to delete them. If one goes up for deletion, let me know, I will help you.

Ikip (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail (talk|contribs) 17:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Article review

Have you reviewed User:Offliner/Georgian atrocities against the South Ossetian people yet? It's meant as a sister article for Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia (since the "consensus" seems to be that it's a valid fork), to present the other side of the issue.

Another thing, since Russia once again experienced a truly horrible August, do you think it would be possible to create August curse (Russia) or something? There should be enough sources available at least[11]. I understand that the article might be problematic, but it's just a little idea. Offliner (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

David Combe

hey there Russavia, i noticed some incorrect information on the wiki page for David Combe. Changes made have been in good faith, and any dubious or incorrect information about him were changed appropriately. Also Photo of Combe is not of him.

New to Wiki but want to make sure that information is correctly portrayed.

Sdcombe (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)sdcombe

Russian Embassy and Consulates in Switzerland

Hi Russavia. Yesterday I made some pictures from the Russian Consulaten in Geneva. I added my favourite picture to your list. Maybe I can also take the two missing pictures in Bern. But at the moment I don't have so much time. Good luck for the list and the best regards from Switzerland, Sandro (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosvinsky Mountain

Do you have access to any Russian sources on this subject? It was deleted because some editors seem to doubt its existence (it's only been mentioned in a few conservative media outlets as a cold war era command post). But if there is such a mountain and it is some sort of military installation I think it would be worth recreating with an extra citation or two. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

More information please?

1) In "The Monthly", August 2006, No. 15, Shane Maloney wrote an article titled: David Combe & Valery Ivanov, containing the paragraph:

"Of Ivanov, less is known. The surname is not uncommon. The KGB is officially defunct and its former members are difficult to trace. But a certain Valery Ivanov serves on the Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs and National Security of the Republic of Belarus. He looks older, of course, but the physical similarity is unmistakable. And the job seems tailor-made for one of the boys."

Did Maloney get his facts wrong?

2) Where did you get your information on the birth dates?

3) Do you know if there is ANY information about the combe-ivanov Ivanov since he left Australia?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't supply some information to counter Mr Maloney, I see no reason not to revert back to the edit with the supporting reference.
I'm looking forward to your reply, particularly it you can answer all three of my questions with useful supporting information.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Maloney is wrong, absolutely wrong. I really hate it when so-called journalists put something to print without doing a simple search. These days, there's a marvellous thing called the internet which would have made Maloney's job much, much easier to do. If Maloney had of done such a search, he would have found Ivanov's bio on the Belarus National Assembly website which gives the date of birth. Hope this helps. --Russavia Dialogue 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. (And personally, I don't think Ivanov 1955 looks anything much like Ivanov 1948, either ... )
Have you been able to find ANYTHING about Ivanov 1948?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Russian government photographs

Could you remind me who is it that uploads Russian government photographs to commons? I would like a photograph of Dmitry Dmitriyenko. Ottre 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do most of the uploading of photos from the Kremlin website (kremlin.ru) it seems, but I can't find a photo of Dmitriyenko on there as yet. When Medvedev travels to Murmansk Oblast again, this will be the best time to get it. Other than this, we would have to contact the Murmansk Oblast authorities and ask for permission to use their photographic materials under a commons compatible licence. Dunno if you are interested in doing that side of things? --Russavia Dialogue 12:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I remembered seeing you around the wiki in various places. I haven't managed to find much written about him, except for a few briefings in Izvestia, so I don't know how much time I will spend on the article now. There probably isn't even enough for a DYK. Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with OTRS. Are you willing to do the legwork? Ottre 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cats

Regarding this, if you are planning to create and populate this cat, may I suggest that you create and populate two instead (administrative divisions of Russia and municipal divisions of Russia)? Might save some maintenance headaches later on... Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:39, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

For fucks sake Weasel, can't you do anything for me anymore? Don't make me beg! Right?!? --Russavia Dialogue 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In actual fact, I was gonna contact you about that. Should be there a single category? Or two? You seem to be the expert here on this side of things, so I'll get you to decide how to categorise them, eh? --Russavia Dialogue 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
<watching a big dump of boring hit the fan...> I guess I could do it myself... Gee, I only asked that you do it for me (as usual), is all... Are you busy or something? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:45, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Busy? I dunno...doesn't that big f'ing box at the top of my talk page say anything to you? OK, I realise it only says I may not respond quickly to respond to questions, but the general gist of the box should be pretty damned clear, wouldn't you say? --Russavia Dialogue 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Check this out... Category:Administrative divisions of federal subjects of Russia created in 2007 by yourself. Shouldn't this really be located at Category:Administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia -- better English innit? --Russavia Dialogue 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember this one now. Someone then argued that "better English" should be damned in cat names for the sake of brevity. I don't quite understand now why I bought that, but bought it I did (judging by the fact that I myself created that pidgin cat). Yeah, it really needs to be fixed and a native speaker is the best candidate for that kind of job, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:01, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Oh there you go with the native speaker line again man. What exactly do you do for a living? Professor of English or something I bet! :) Anyway, given my exemplary command of the English language (and speeling and gramma) I have put it at CfD. Also note, the other couple of cats I have also nominated earlier today for renaming. --Russavia Dialogue 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, I almost fell for your "professor of English" compliment, but then realized it's just a cheap ploy to get me do all the work (and no, that's not what I do for a living). As for the CfD, I have just seconded the nomination. Haven't had a chance to look at the other couple of cats you nominated; will do so now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago you asked

User_talk:Piotrus#zdj.C4.99cie_konsulatu_Rosji_w_Gda.C5.84sku (Russian consulat in Gdańsk photo). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of all non de jure Diplomatic Missions

I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/recieving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

???

Why did you revert that change? The version you reverted to has non-working code, check footnote 28. --Xeeron (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Any reply here? --Xeeron (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Story

Hi, Russavia – since you've made an edit to Soviet Story just now, do you have any opinions on this? [12]. It seems there's a concerted effort on the part of some users of Wikipedia to paint the critics of the film as liars, without even any attempt to include sources or anything such. Really stupefying. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is absolutely stupefying. It even extended after I uploaded File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg, which an editor attempted to speedy delete, both here on en:wiki, and also on commons after I uploaded it there. Frankly, I think it's actually quite funny - editors "fighting" over articles which are rubbish to begin with, and which any reader with half a brain will realise is a piece of crap and will go elsewhere to get their info. Makes one wonder why we bother sometimes, I guess. --Russavia Dialogue 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of AIM Ad Hack

It is considered common courtesy to not template the regulars. Also, AIM Ad Hack has already gone through AfD and the consensus was keep. Ali (t)(c) 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What templating of regulars are you talking about exactly? In regards to the AfD, I'll take it back to AfD now. --Russavia Dialogue 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This edit summary is unacceptable. Please refrain from such pointy actions in the future. Regards, Javért  |  Talk 05:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if you are going to (or can) do anything with this, but I thought it'd be something interested to track: link. Just what "interests" does this primarily target, I wonder ;)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:39, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I am lagging pretty badly...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:33, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Topic ban

Russavia, for the reasons given at this ANI thread, under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are topic-banned from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months. I will consider imposing an indefinite block in the event of any violations.  Sandstein  13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I will start a new account, and use it to spread accusations of people being murderers, paedophiles and shit like that. But of course, the people will be Russian. What will that get me? Oh, don't worry, I know that already...a medal. You are topic banning me because I said on the talk page of an article Propagandic Republic of Latvia? That has gotta be the most sorry and pathetic excuse for a banning I have ever seen.

And the diffs that were shown, you have to be kidding me? Did you actually read the ENTIRE talk page of the diffs that were shown, or did you look only at the diffs themselves? This was months and months and months ago, and I am being topic banned now for daring to challenge editors to provide information. Editors using figures from the 1940s and 1950s to portray what "most countries" think, when "most countries" did not exist at that time in the form we have today...and I pressured them to answer the questions, which they refused to do. And yes, when I said something was humour, it was meant as such. I don't bullshit, that is for sure, so basically you are banning me coz you don't know how I operate.

Oh, and by the way, let's see how pathetic this really is. Take a look at Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park). User:Martintg, User:Vecrumba, User:Biophys and User:Digwuren all edit warred to include information which 1) the editors had not even cited and 2) totally failed verification and 3) re-included after it was made clear it failed verificaton. What was the information? Oh, just that the memorial, wrongly, is called the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist. Where's their blocks for the same things? WP:BATTLE being the main thing. Of course, you won't ban them. Maybe just give them all a bloody prize why don't you?

Oh, and also, I have a shitload of materials written up for articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. But hey, this has to do with the history of Russia, broadly construed, so I will wait with baited breathe for one of the adolescent children to come running to you to ban me.

But of course, I will also come running to you the very instant that a single one of them accuse anyone in Russia of engaging in propaganda -- they do this all the time, so your talk page will be chockers, and I will ask that they receive the same topic ban. I will also come running to you the very instant that a single editor accuses someone of refusing to answer questions, or other such things. What's good for the goose, and all that.

Oh and hey, take a look at Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć. The talk page is being used, at my instigation in order to raise concerns regarding the article. One editor ridiculously suggesting that we don't use Russian sources, and User:Vecrumba and User:Martintg have now gone in an removed any mention of any dispute relating to this from the article - and you know what -- this is typical behaviour from such editors - and my comment in the edit summary, was spot on, wasn't it? These editors continually argue to exclude Russian POV from articles -- whether that POV is correct or not -- it is POV which deserves to be in such articles. Or do we want articles on Russian history made up from sources exclusively from Tonga? What an absolutely-fucking-exciting article that would be to read, I can hardly wait to read it. Or do we want articles on subjects which involve conflicts involving Russia made up entirely from sources which support the "opposition" side? Well, that is what such editors advocate, and which they clearly do, and will continue to do. What's gonna happen about that? Don't worry, I know the answer to that also. --Russavia Dialogue 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, be advised that your topic ban includes edits to your talk page. Any further edits in the vein of the above will be deemed violations of the topic ban (as well as potentially blockable personal attacks), except for any edits strictly necessary to undertake an appeal of the sanction as provided for in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. To the extent that your comments above constitute such an appeal to me, it is declined, because to the limited extent you address the edit for which you were banned, you claim that it was meant humorously, which is not credible because it is at odds with the serious and combative attitude displayed by you in this conflict, and also because your comments above are further examples of battleground-like behaviour.  Sandstein  05:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Edits to my talk page are included in part of the ban? I will fight you on that. I will wait for someone to ask me a question on some part of Russian history, and for me to provide them information and a link, and then let's see you block me for good for that. And like I said, you are going to do absolutely f' all about User:Vecrumba (look at page history), User:Martintg (look at page history, and Martintg's own admission on talk page that he had not even cited the sources), User:Biophys ([13], [14], [15], [16] and User:Digwuren [17], [18] using of Wikipedia as a battleground to insert information into Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) which 1) they had not even cited and 2) TOTALLY failed verification. Or is it totally ok with you for editors to call Russians "rapists"? What ya gonna do about that? I await your (probable laughable) answer to the question on those editors using WP as a battleground. --Russavia Dialogue 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, if Sandstein does nothing, which he won't, I will take this further to have the above editors blocked from the same subject area. More egregious than my using Propagandic Republic of Latvia on a talk page, and my inserting of sourced information into an article (with edit summary which indicated that I would fight its removal, due to the history of these editors in using Wikipedia at a battleground to call Russian rapists and other such shit) is things such as what these editors did on the Soviet War Memorial article. There is also Biophys' use of article talk pages to call Vladimir Putin a paedophile [19]. What kind of sick shit is that? You condoning such things Sandstein? If you don't ban these editors from these topics, it is clear that you agree with these editors calling Russian rapists in articles without viewing sources, and when those sources are proven to not include their claims for these editors to reinsert accusations of Russians being rapists into the same article using the same sources which have been proven not to include said information, and it is also totally ok for editors to use talk pages to accuse a BLP figure of being a paedophile. Oh yeah, you'll notice that one of my blocks for edit warring was because of Biophys re-inserting poorly sourced information of Putin being a paedophile into the Alexander Litvinenko, i.e. removing information that called the claims wild and unsubstantiated, and also a scholar's opinion on Litvinenko being a one man disinformation bureau. Of course, nothing happened to him for this. Where is the WP:BATTLE ban under WP:DIGWUREN for these editors? Is this type of behaviour being condoned by the community? One can only say that it is as nothing is ever done about it. So if Sandstein does nothing, I will ask at the same noticeboard, that these editors also be banned, because I have let such stuff slide in the past, but no longer will I. --Russavia Dialogue 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and what do we have here. Totally ignoring issues on the talk page, and consensus on the talk page, Biophys has taken my 55 hour banning as an opporunity to revert to his favoured version of Alexander Litvinenko, with the always laughable and pathetic "compromise version". Of course, Biophys' compromise version includes removing sourced information which is critical of Litvinenko, deliberately misrepresenting sources in an attempt to use WP as a tool of advocacy and propaganda, the continued reinsertion of links which breach copyright, deliberately poisoning NPOV (changing section heading "Dismissal from the FSB" [neutral] to "Persecution" [not neutral, but at least he has spelled it right for once haha]), and a whole host of other things. Who exactly is using WP as a battleground here? Sandstein, you had better blanket ban Biophys from ALL articles on the same area. --Russavia Dialogue 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Missed the whole story, WTF is happening? It appears that now you even cannot sign with your own name. Sandsteins must be proud of themselves. NVO (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments hidden, because broadly construed a certain editor is in breach of a certain ridiculous topic ban by even discussing this....shhh....don't tell a certain admin it is here...but I needn't worry, given his doing nothing about WP:BATTLE-like actions on other articles, perhaps he has bad eyesight and will miss this altogether anway :)
Basically, Martintg (an editor who repeatedly edit warred at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) to include that it is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist without even sighting sources which turned out to absolutely false) (WP:BATTLE actions for which he was never banned for...surprise surprise) removed the opinion of Dyukov from The Soviet Story. Given his history on articles such as Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), and the fact that Russian opinions in that article were being labelled as "False Accusations", even though many things insinuated were never at any stage specifically said and/or taken out of context, and also the fact that there are multiple quotes giving this documentary praise, and given the fact that Dyukov is prominent in sources relating to the documentary, I reverted stating that I would fight him on this. This is after I removed a very poorly sourced, and a potential BLP violation (you can't call people liars without sources), and after I posted a notice on the talk page in relation to the problems. It was also after User:Biophys ignored the talk page discussion (he has a history of this as per Alexander Litvinenko as a prime example) and blindly reverted [20], and before he also removed synthesis tags in relation to what was on the talk page (note my edit summary). User:Vecrumba took issue with my writing Propagandistic Republic of Latvia on the talk page, and bitched about it at ANI. Remember Vecrumba is also an editor who inserted false information in a WP:BATTLE-like manner in Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) basically labelling all Soviet soldiers rapists (his excuse below is laughable, as my response to him will show). After perusing a document by Dyukov, I extracted a photo from it and uploaded it, which demonstrated in a visual sense falsifications by the documentary maker. Martintg then engaged in battle conditions in a disruptive manner to have it speedied using reasoning which did not correlate with the PD tagging used. This occured both here on Wikipedia and on Commons. All of that is ignored, but because I use in an edit summary that I will fight them on this, I get banned for six months for engaging in battle conditions. [I would sign my name, but I better not, eh NVO? ;)]

Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)

For the record, my editorial contentions at that time were good-faith based on online content I had retrieved, including searching phrases before and after the passage in question, which all appeared to substantiate the claim. Subsequent research I've done indicates that "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" is indeed closely associated with a specific Soviet war memorial in Berlin, however, it is to the slightly smaller one in the Tiergarten. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Question for NVO

NVO, as you know, I have been doing work on articles relating to the foreign relations of Russia, broadly construed. In the coming weeks I will be finishing off completely User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations -- I am just waiting for a few bits and pieces of info and materials. As this is, broadly construed, relating to the history of Russia, and because broadly construed, it would be in breach, broadly construed, of a broadly construed ban placed on me, would you mind if I messaged you, so that when it is ready to be placed into mainspace, broadly construed, I can email it to you so you can place it in namespace for me. The reason I would have to email it to you, is that if I do a single edit to this article in my userspace, which broadly construed is considered part of the history of Russia, I would hate for an editor with a broadly construed bug up their ass to bitch to a broadly construed admin to have me permanently banned. My broadly construed thanks to you if you can help with that? --Russavia Dialogue 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I hate to have to think what I will have to do when I create History of Aeroflot as part of a complete rewrite of Aeroflot; after all, broadly construed it is a part of the history of the Soviet Union and Russia. --Russavia Dialogue 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked until you agree to abide by your topic ban

Russavia, by this edit you violated the topic ban imposed at [21], as you yourself admit in the edit at issue. As announced in the message imposing the topic ban, I have indefinitely blocked you in enforcement of, and under the authority of, WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. I will unblock you if you convincingly agree to abide by your topic ban, which I might add has general support at WP:ANI#Arbitration enforcement sanction. Should you want to contest this block, which you may do by following the instructions at WP:GAB, I would like to note that this block is an arbitration enforcement action and as such may not be lifted except through the appeals procedure set forth in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. As to any complaints you may have with respect to other editors, you may raise them in any appropriate forum, including WP:AE, after the expiration of your topic ban.  Sandstein  19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have now overstepped the mark Sandstein, and I will never agree to the draconian ban that you have placed on me; a ban which even forbids me from questioning the ban, and the actions of other editors. Sorry, but no, I will not agree. --Russavia Dialogue 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And answer the question. Do you condone the actions of other editors above? --Russavia Dialogue 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You are of course not banned from questioning your ban; my message above explicitly allowed any edits required to make an appeal. But your topic ban does cover allegations of improper editing by others in the area you are topic-banned from. As to the conduct by others you refer to, I have not looked at it. I prefer to deal with one issue at a time, and that issue is currently your conduct. Once the problems with your conduct are resolved, I will be amenable to examining whether administrative action is needed against others, provided any requests are made in an actionable form, such as through a {{arbitration enforcement request}}. Though such a request cannot come from you during the next six months because of your topic ban.  Sandstein  19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well here we go. I am fucked if I do, and I am fucked if I don't. You say that I am supposed to take issues to WP:AE, but at the same time you say that I am banned from even alleging improper editing from others, thereby meaning that I can't even go to WP:AE. Can someone else please explain to me this ridiculousness? --Russavia Dialogue 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You can take your issues to AE in six months after your topic ban expires. Other people can do it now. If nobody else is bothered by the conduct of the editors you complain about, it is likely that the problem is not very grave or urgent.  Sandstein  20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh and answer this. You are also telling me that if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Barack Obama is a paedophile, and I alert you to this you would take action, but if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile, and I alert you to this, I will be seen to be in violation of the topic ban? Please, do not make up the rules as you go along. --Russavia Dialogue 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No, such BLP violations with respect to Vladimir Putin have nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Alerting admins to them does not violate the topic ban.  Sandstein  20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, you're making a huge mistake here by banning one of the best editors of the Russia-related articles! KNewman (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of others WP:BATTLE - topic ban be damned

So-called topic ban be damned. I will place details here for Sandstein to ignore and for others to read, so that they can see why one would pop a blood vessel at times.

  • I place a message on User:Digwuren talk page asking him if he is able to take a photo of the Russian consulate in Tartu. User:Colchicum posts a message to Digwuren stating "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia."
  • An admin alerts Colchicum to this [22] and Colchicum replies [23] "No apologies from me, feel free to block if you wish. I don't really care much about blocks, DYKs, barnstars, fame and so on. For sure this wouldn't cause me "to pop a blood vessel or two". I did what I did, and a spade is a spade. It is not clear what you would prevent with this, though."

Is this not a huge personal attack and major incivility? And given Digwuren's decision not to help, based upon Colchicum's comments, this is hardly helping to build collegial editing. If I fuck up, I apologise. But to fob it off, I want action on Colchicum, for a major personal attack and for engaging in WP:BATTLE conditions. He has a history of this....including referring to User:HistoricWarrior007 as User:HystoricWanker

  • Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 : "# Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 6:53 pm, 10 March 2009, Tuesday (6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+9)
  • Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 : "* Comment The Hwanker is back at canvassing :) Colchicum (talk) 12:47 am, 9 June 2009, Tuesday (3 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+8)"

The first time Colchicum called him a WANKER, the editor posted this User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Trollfest. (Trollfest is what Colchicum named it to). No apology from him there either.

Sandstein is going to sit idly by and allow this editor to refer to others as Nazis and Wankers. And I will get megapermabanned for even mentioning this. There's more to come. --Russavia Dialogue 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, if somebody else makes a proper WP:AE request about this, I will look at it, as will other admmins, but you are currently topicbanned and not helping yourself. If you continue in this vein, I will remove your ability to edit your talk page.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You are going to sit idly by and let these editors get away with such things. Surely calling one a Nazi is worse than telling editors that I will fight them on something they have a history of doing. And since when has others calling me a fucking Nazi part of any topic ban? I don't recall you banning me from the topic area of "lets call Russavia a Nazi and HistoricWarrior a wanker" - can you show me the article that goes along with that? What a fucking joke. --Russavia Dialogue 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, I suggest you WP:CHILL and maybe wait a few days before responding. you're obviously agitated by your ban but continually swearing and being aggressive and blaming others for it is not helping. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not blaming others, but I am saying that there are factors which contribute to such things, and that it is only fair that those factors be investigated also. Sandstein refuses to do this, which can only be seen as implicit approval of the behaviour of others as I have raised here. It's about being equitiable and making all editors responsible for their own edits, instead of using carefully selected diffs in order to get rid of a content opponent. --Russavia Dialogue 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well perhaps wait for a few other admins to view this. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein: I don't have a clue what is going on here, I just saw the edit war block, which may not be related. That said, if Russavia is collecting evidence, about real or imagined conflicts here on his talk page, I think he should be able to do this without warnings about his talk page being protected. If Russavia is not abiding by his topic ban, I support your decision to block him until he abides by it, but allow him to express his perceived injustices on the only place he has left on wikipedia.
Russavia: I suggest that you stop blaming your captors, and instead try to convince other editors why you should be allowed to continue to edit here. What pages have you created, what pages have you improved?
Part of surviving on wikipedia is trying to forget past injustices. Sometimes you are able to correct those past injustices, sometimes you are not. Bide your time Russavia. Tell these editors you will abide by the topic ban, and abide by it. This is the only option you have. These editors are more powerful than you, they know the rules better than you, and they hold all the cards.
To help forget this happened, blank your talk page after you are unbanned, and avoid contact with these editors for now. That may include sacrificing articles, but remember, everything is stored in history, and can later be recovered if needed.
Shetsliva drog. Ikip (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your message Ikip. I'm not blaming my captors, don't get me wrong on that. I take responsibility for my actions, and part of my problem is that I have let things just slide in the past and have moved onto other articles. But I am arguing that my inability to bring these injustices to the surface due to this topic ban is wrong, and you appear to agree with me on that. Honestly, what is the point of my bringing these to WP:AE in six months time, by which time they will be old news. I also fail to see how my being called a Nazi by an editor would be covered by this ban, when it was done on a user talk page, and was done after I asked an editor for help with photos for List of diplomatic missions of Russia; this has nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Sandstein does not, or refuses to, recognise that point, and this is why I said that he is being draconian in his enforcement of the topic ban into areas which are not specifically covered by it.

List of articles

As to examples of my work

DYK articles

Russian diplomat articles (all new articles)

Lists of Ambassadors (all new articles)

Other articles

Project maintenance

  • I have been quite active as part of normal editing procedure in the categorisation of articles relating to Russia. This involves categorising articles in relevant categories, and creating them where needed. Examples of this are Category:Governors of the Russian Federation, Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. It also involves searching WP on a regular basis to find articles which belongs in various categories.
  • Nominating divisive and battleground templates for deletion. A prime example of this is Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda - note one editor claimed it was humourous. And note that it appeared on several Latvian articles which are under general sanctions, and after I removed it from the article talk pages, these were reverted by said editors. The consensus from editors who are not involved in this area of editing, is that such templates are personal attacks/battleground, attempts to use WP:NPOV to make POV statements, and are already covered by {{controversial}}.

Currently working on

If editors look at the articles I am responsible for writing, I always write in a neutral tone, and will always ensure that if there is two sides of a story, that it is covered in articles -- in an NPOV way of course. I will also go thru articles and if there information which can be added, which isn't in the article, be it negative or postive, I will add it. My editing really does speak for itself; it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not a POV-pusher who is using WP for advocacy and to undo perceived wrongs in history; I am here to help build an encyclopaedia.

Having said that, I will abide by the topic ban...the history of the Soviet Union isn't really an area that interests me anyway---articles are so biased, that anyone with half a brain who should read them will know that they are biased and will take the article for the joke that they usually are.

Now a question for Sandstein, which needs to be answered. Above, you mentioned that a BLP violation on Putin is not covered by this ban, because it has nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. So having said that, can you please explain to me WHY on the other hand you claim that I am unable to seek redress against any editor who has called me a Nazi on several occasions -- the one link shown above was on a users talk page where I asked for help in sourcing a photo for List of diplomatic missions of Russia, and why in seeking redress mentioning that same said editor called another user a wanker on several occasions on the talk page for 2008 South Ossetia War. Neither the users talk page, nor the war article have anything to do with the history of the Soviet Union, yet for some reason you are trying to block me from even seeking redress which I am entitled to do as it is a clear violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE -- all things which you used against me in your 6 month ban from history of the USSR articles. This needs an answer from yourself, as it could seem to anyone reading this that you have clearly overstepped the mark, and it could also be seen that you are protecting certain editors by placing a draconian and incorrect interpretation of your own ban on myself. Thanks --Russavia Dialogue 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you agree to abide by your topic ban, I am unblocking you. Should you violate the ban, you may be re-blocked or your topic ban may be extended. As to your question, I cannot usefully answer it, since it seems to be some sort of accusation in the form of a question. Let me only note that no editor is "entitled" to redress or to anything else on Wikipedia. To clarify any ambiguity that may exist, you are topic-banned from the subject of Soviet (and Russian, Baltic, etc.) history. That means that you may pursue dispute resolution with other editors, except where such dispute resolution concerns content related to Soviet history. You may certainly object if others make personal attacks against you, and request appropriate admin action. However, I strongly advise you not to do this with respect to any such attacks that may have been previously made in the context of Soviet history articles, so as to avoid violating your topic ban inadvertently. Any wikilawyering about the ban will also not be tolerated.  Sandstein  12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can someone please file the request against Colchicum at WP:AE, as it is in violation of WP:DIGWUREN. All of the diffs are presented, and it is an open and shut case of severe incivility and engaging in battle conditions. --Russavia Dialogue 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

this is a most unusual request. and I must say reinforcing want to battle. Requesting others to edit or comment on behalf of you whilst blocked is not really recommended. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If another editor makes an AE request in their own words, I will not consider this to be forbidden proxy editing (but other admins may disagree).  Sandstein  08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not press the charges against Colchicum as his personal attacks are months old, he stopped them voluntarily and because Colchicum is generally very prolific and helpful editor. On the other hand, I feel Russavia is owed a "Get out of jail free" card for not pressing charges at that moment. He is usually on the opposite side of Colchicum in POV conflicts and the attack was quite poisonous. Russavia is also very prolific and helpful user and I feel it is wrong if he is topic banned from almost every topic he developed before even such noncontroversial as Russian and Soviet aviation, diplomatic relations of Russia, missing Duma members, etc., while his opponents were not subjected to similarly harsh sanctions Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If Russavia wants to contest the ban, he may do so through an appeal as explained above. But overturning it would require sustained on-wiki admin consensus, which is unlikely as long as Russavia insists that everybody else is the problem. No matter how productive Russavia may be, battleground-like conduct of the sort that led to his ban is not tolerated. Everybody is dealt with on their own merits; if any other editor with a similar history of disruption commits similar misconduct, they may get a similar sanction following an AE request, but Russavia is not entitled to demand that others are sanctioned just because he has been.  Sandstein  08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not demanding that others be sanctioned. I am asking that others conduct also be looked at; it is just that their conduct deserves sanctions. After having given the evidence to you on several occasions, you refuse to do that, and claim that I am unable to raise others conduct for discussion due to a topic ban, which even bans me from discussing the topic ban in a fair fashion, because others conduct is also a problem. I am not blaming everyone else at all; I am responsible for my own edits, and cop things on the chin. But what I have not done is run like a school kid to admins everytime someone has done something to offend me (and I am thicker skinned than those who reported me...I would never run to an admin to ask that others be blocked for saying "Propagandic Russian Federation" - that in my mind is just childish and pathetic reason to ask for a ban). And I certainly wouldn't use other editors pushing me for answers to questions raised on a talk page as evidence of battleground conditions - WP:V is a key condition of WP, apparently. But I am now going to ask for WP:AE for editors using a talk page to accuse Putin of being a paedophile, admitting on Putinism that they want to make a "grotesque article" (this is pure abuse of WP as a tool to advocate), inserting information into articles calling Soviet soldiers rapists after using sources which turned out to be completely false (this means no sighting of sources took place), calling myself a Nazi and another editor a wanker, and other things. The biggest mistake I have made is not raising these things officially at WP:AE officially and asking for sanctions, because according to Sandstein, he who bitches first, bitches last, and even if the people who bitched first have done things which are worthy of sanctions, I have no right to address a single thing, even though I have been involved in witnessing their actions (and often been at the end of their actions)...Stalin would be proud that his legacy of show trials is alive and well. --Russavia Dialogue 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, you need to understand that your topic ban is because of your own battleground-like behavior, and the behavior of others has absolutely nothing to do with your ban. Your topic ban would also have been imposed if your perceived opponents were the worst sort of vandals one can imagine. You are best served by agreeing to abide by your topic ban in order to be unblocked, demonstrate for a few months that you can contribute non-aggressively, and then maybe ask for a lifting of the ban based on your good conduct. Continuing to frame the issue as a conflict between you and others will not help you at all; indeed, this pattern of behavior is the reason why you were topic-banned in the first place.  Sandstein  08:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see this

I just saw this: [24] Sorry to see this. Is there anything I can do to help? Email me if you feel like you want to talk privately. Ikip (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Russavia, this is your only warning. Immediately after your unblock, you began editing articles such as Dmitry Medvedev , High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve and Alexander Litvinenko, which pertain at least in part to the history of Russia and/or the Soviet Union, topics from which you are currently banned. If you continue to violate your topic ban, you will be sanctioned without further warning.  Sandstein  13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you stated above No, such BLP violations with respect to Vladimir Putin have nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Alerting admins to them does not violate the topic ban. Sandstein 4:48 am, Yesterday (UTC+8) If Vladimir Putin has nothing to do with the history of Russia and the Soviet Union, then it is only natural to say that neither does Medvedev, nor Litvinenko. And High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve is a program instigated only a couple of months ago. You need to explain this bloody ban, because honestly it has me dumbfounded, because of conflicting information from yourself, which appears to me to be a changing of the goal posts? --Russavia Dialogue 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No, reverting any claims that Putin is a paedophile (as in your example) does not pertain to the history of the USSR. General edits to articles that are substantially about Russian history, however, violate the topic ban. To make sure, please go edit something that is not about Russians or Russia, or you will be blocked.  Sandstein  14:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me Sandstein, but your topic ban which stated "topic-banned from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months." and you claim that High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve is part of this ban. This is not what I agreed to abide by. If you wanted to ban me from all articles mentioning the word Russia you should have banned me for that, at which point I would have told one to shove it; but you didn't. This is not wikilawyering, or being confrontational, or anything of the like, but a genuine question on how something that was formed one year ago has anything to do with the history of Russia. A fellow admin of yours has already raised the same type of question to you, and you have still not yet answered it. --Russavia Dialogue 14:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting comment

As an independent observer, I am having hard time understanding just exactly which articles he would be allowed to edit under this ban? Every single article in the scope of WP:RUSSIA can be "broadly construed" as pertaining to the history of the country, yet Russavia is not banned from editing articles about Russia/Soviet Union per se, but only articles about their history. A clarification of the practical applicability of this ban would be much appreciated at this point. If something as current as High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve is a no-no, then what is a yes-yes, so to speak? Examples would be most helpful. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:55, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

This is what I don't understand. If High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve is covered by the ban, then I would have to deal with the argument that APEC Russia 2012 is also covered by the ban as it has information which could also be broadly construed as being history.

Perhaps in providing clarification, Sandstein can tell me whether these would be covered by the ban or not?

--Russavia Dialogue 14:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All of these are about aspects of Russian or Soviet history and are included in the topic ban, except User:Russavia/Duma-A, which is exclusively about current politicians.  Sandstein  14:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dmitry Medvedev is a current politician as well, yet he was the first to be listed in your warning above. I guess I just don't see the logic (and by the looks of it Russavia doesn't either, and he has to work under this ban somehow). I hope you understand that under such restrictions a clarity of the guidelines is of utmost importance. Further comments, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:24, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how User:Russavia/SU fleet deals with the history of Russia or the Soviet Union; it is going to be a historical fleet listing for a company -- which just happens to be Soviet/Russian. If you had of said that you want to block me from editing articles relating to the history of the USSR with the Baltic States, you know what, that would be workable and I'd agree to it, as most of the articles are pieces of **** anyway, and there is no point in trying to improve them (our readers aren't that stupid either), but it does seem you have had me agree to something (in your mind) which is outside the scope of what you have actually written. If you want to amend the ban to Soviet Union and the Baltic States, then let's do it. --Russavia Dialogue 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Clarification has been provided in the section below. Your agreement to any sanctions is not required.  Sandstein  14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I don't find this answer/action acceptable. As you have probably noticed, I am not even questioning whether the ban itself was imposed fairly or not—that would require quite a bit of digging around, which is something I explicitly refuse to do any more, even if it involves figuring out whether an editor, who is clearly an overall benefit to the project, operates with some malicious intent or merely screwed up (perhaps more than once). So, operating under the assumption that the ban is well-deserved (for whatever reason that is), I am only trying to clarify the parameters and limits of this ban. As Russavia and myself pointed out above, the original ban (according to how you phrased it) applied not to all articles about Russia/Soviet Union, but to all articles dealing with the history of Russia/Soviet Union, although "broadly construed". I understand that "broadly construed" here means really broadly construed, but by the definition of the ban it could not be as broad as to include everything that has a slightest connection to Russia. You didn't seem to disagree with that at first; you even provided an example of what would be allowed. Problem is, the example contradicted the wording of the ban and the follow-up warning. Now your solution seems to extend the ban to include everything related to Russia? If I may ask, for what purpose? Does Russavia "exhibit unacceptable battleground-like behavior" in the articles about Russian airlines? Russian ambassadors? Heroes of the Russian Federation? The new ban terms are unnecessarily strict, and only seem as a way out for you from this case altogether (which you are probably quite tired of at this point). As much as I myself hate discussions of this kind, I believe admins should be held you accountable for their actions when there are doubts or unresolved concerns. Please, do explain the rationale behind making the ban broader in scope. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
I am indeed tired of this. If the ban appears to be unnecessarily strict, it is because it appears to be the only ban wide enough to encompass all of the topic area in which Russavia has been disruptive, given that Russsavia has been unable or unwilling to abide by a more limited ban. I believe that no further elaboration is required and refer you to my previous comments in this matter.  Sandstein  15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would take exception with such reasoning. If you are tired and can't handle this properly any longer, please kindly transfer the case to an administrator that you believe is capable of handling the case. Shooting a person because a properly equipped jail to hold him cannot be found is not a civilized solution. The original ban would work marvelously for its purposes, if only you took a few minutes to word it better. It's not like it's hard to make a clear distinction between what constitutes "topics on Russia" and "topics on Russian history", wouldn't you agree? Russavia agreed to abide by the terms of the original ban—so if you just take ten minutes to clarify its definition, you'll be done with this case in no time, no one's time will need to be wasted any further, and we all would be back to doing something useful around here instead of continuing to hold these debates.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? "all of the topic area in which Russavia has been disruptive". This is a personal attack on myself by you, and take it as an insult on my intelligence, and the intelligence of those who may be reading this. At User_talk:Russavia#List_of_articles you will see a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG list of articles which I have been responsible for in creating and/or expanding. To laughably claim that I have been disruptive in these articles is absolute bollocks. I am sorry if List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria is construed by you as being disruptive (it obviously wasn't by those editors who participated in the discussion to make it a featured list)....I make a solemn promise. "I, Russavia, promise to never, ever, ever, ever create well researched and comprehensive articles in an NPOV fashion again, for if this is what Sandstein calls disruptive editing, I would hate to see what is called constructive in his mind." Actually, Sandstein, care to show me anything of mine which is constructive? If you are tired of this, some of this fault is mine, but some of it is yours too. As Ezhiki writes, if you only took a few minutes to answer the questions which were asked, and didn't give me conflicting answers, I would have known where the limits are. But you did give me conflicting answers on several occasions, and you still have not answered the questions in a satisfactory manner. As I said, this seems to be a case of Stalin holding the Moscow Trials here on WP. You can also take this message of mine as my rescinding my agreeance to abide by the bans as put in place by yourself. I will be damned if I will be blocked from ALL Russian articles, simply because you are tired and can't be arsed in answering questions which several people have now asked of you. --Russavia Dialogue 15:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase the last part. I rescind my agreeance to abide by the ban which encompasses ALL Russian articles, for the reason I gave above. But I will agree to abide by the first ban, so long as it is made explicitly clear exactly what is construed as being "History of the Soviet Union" and Russia. If this is not able to be explained in a manner which makes it clear to myself and others just what the articles are, then I suggest again that Sandstein consider replacing it with a ban on any articles relating to the history of the Soviet Union and Russia with the Baltic States, given that this is where he believes that I am disruptive, and it is pretty easy to ascertain what these articles may entail. It would still leave me free to edit articles where it is clear that I am not disruptive - it would allow myself to create content such as User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations, whilst staying away from Estonia-Russia relations. It would also leave me free to create articles such as List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria, but whilst staying away from List of Ambassadors of Estonia to Russia (even though 2 editors look forward to my eventual development of the list) (if anyone visits this page, please consider tagging it with {{WikiProject Russia}}. It is clear from my contributions which I listed above, that I am not a disruptive editor as has been "broadly construed" by Sandstein, and the bans are supposed to be preventative and should not restrict an editor from contributing to the project. Is there anyone else who believes this may be a way out? After all, we aren't here to bitch and moan, we are here to help build a useful resource, and the sooner a fair outcome is achieved, there sooner we can all get back to editing. The ball is now in your court Sandstein, but the new status quo is absolutely not a fair solution. --Russavia Dialogue 16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban extended

In view of your wikilawyering above about the original topic ban, and of your violations of it, I am hereby under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions extending its scope to all articles, other pages or discussions having to do with the Soviet Union or its successor states (including Russia and the baltic states). In other words, you are banned from anything that involves Russians or Russia. The purpose of this ban, which also lasts for six months beginning yesterday, is to effectively remove you from a topic area in which you have been exhibiting unacceptable battleground-like behavior.  Sandstein  14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No fucking way. It is not wikilawyering, it is asking a valid question. A question which you will not, or can not, answer. This is bullshit!!!!! Anyone with a half a clue in their head care to comment on this? --Russavia Dialogue 14:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I am posting at the Admin noticeboard on this Sandstein, this is too much to deal with, honestly. How the hell does one expect me to work within the original topic ban area, when you have given me conflicting information on several occasions, and have included a Russian government program announced 1 year ago as being part of the "history", and then say that a list of Duma members is fine because it is current, but then say Medvedev is not OK, even though he is a current leader. My mind is boggling at what is happening here. --Russavia Dialogue 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, you are getting above yourself. I suggest you retract on this imediatly. You are not God, you are not an Arb, you are merely an Admin and a pretty minor one at that. I suggest you remember this and act accordingly. Giano (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a possible solution to what is obviously a problem just above. Anyone care to comment? --Russavia Dialogue 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote for today

Need a little humour, this is how I feel....

  • Eddie: Right - I, the proposed accused, think that, well, I mean, you know, well the day in question was not a good day for me, all right? But I put it to you that I don't see how any day could have been good the way this bloody country's run. Well, you know, I was just trying to do my best, trying to get from A to B, do a little shopping. I was trying to take control of my life, you know, only to find that it's actually controlled for me by petty bureaucracy and bits of bloody paper - ignorant bloody petty rules and laws that just obstruct every tiny little action until you've committed a crime without even knowing it! I mean, you know, why can't life just be made a little easier for everybody, eh? Why can't it be more like the Continent, and then run down the street in front of charging bulls whilst letting fireworks off out of his bloody nostrils without anyone blinking an eye? Uh? Because it's probably a local holiday and nobody's at work because they all want to have just a little bit of fun and they're not intimidated by some outdated work ethic. I mean, there has to be more to life than just being safe...
  • Judge: Is there a point to all of this?
  • Eddie: [explaining to the judge her problems with the law] Yes, Yes!... Why, oh why, do we pay taxes, hmmm? I mean, just to have bloody parking restrictions- and BUGGERY-UGLY traffic wardens, and BOLLOCKY-pedestrian-BLOODY-crossings?... and those BASTARD railings outside shops windows, making it so difficult, so you can't even get in them! I mean, I know they're there to stop stupid people running into the street and killing themselves! But we're not all stupid! We don't all need nurse-maiding. I mean, why not just have a Stupidity Tax? Just tax the stupid people!
  • Patsy: [stands up] And let them DIE!
  • Eddie: Yes!
  • Judge: Anymore of this ridiculous rant, and I'll put you both away!
  • Gran: Hear, hear!
  • Judge: Edina Margaret Rose Monsoon, I hereby sentence you to...

Ref --Russavia Dialogue 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_12&oldid=1140090598"