User talk:Russavia/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Sandstein's second unnecessary jumping of the gun

Russavia, your statement on WP:ANI, "I will in future ... urge them to sue the Foundation" ([1]), is a legal threat against the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the announcement of an intent to disrupt the project. Please unambiguously withdraw it with your next edit, or you may be indefinitely blocked.  Sandstein  20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, your bulying and threatening is now becoming a problem. I strongly suggest you back off, before others take action against you. You are too involved with Russavia now for your judgement to be sound or trusted. Please let others deal with these matters. You are only an ordinary admin please stop crediting yourself with airs, graces and powers to which you are not entitled. Russavia, you need to clarify your meaning. Giano (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I support Sandstein's point in this assessment. If that legal threat is not withdrawn, it will lead to an immediate indefinite block. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Good Ol'factory) I kind of second Giano, too. Sandstein, if you believe that it is OK for an editor restricted due to conflicts to leave reporting of BLP violations and copyvios to others, then surely we can expect those same others to be able to deal with an alleged legal threat by a user with whom you are so obviously and deeply in conflict?and so we did

And yes, Russavia, please do clarify what you meant. The "but, I won't do that" part kind of negates the "I will in future attempt to contact the subjects of said articles directly, and advise them of the violations and urge them to sue the Foundation" portion, but all in all it's all very confusing and doesn't look good at all. Sandstein may not at this point be the best person to bring this comment up, but brought up it should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:52, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider myself to be in conflict with Russavia for the purpose of remaining an uninvolved administrator. WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions makes it clear that "enforcing the provisions of this decision" - which is what I am doing all along - "will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." It also states that "Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions", so Russavia can make an appeal at WP:AE if he believes that I am too involved to take certain actions. (That is, after he unambiguously withdraws his threat.)  Sandstein  22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't consider yourself involved? Well I do. Particularly given your total misunderstanding or ignoring of probably everything I have written. I have ZERO faith in your ability to treat me fairly as a user; particularly when I believe it was as a result of you being tired and frustated (which you admitted to being), and punishing because I dare question your reasoning. You are not above anyone on this project WP, and editors have the right to question. What is amazing is that throughout this entire debacle I can find nothing from you where you admit that you have done anything wrong in this whole drama; yet I see all types of admissions from me. I also see a heap of personal attacks on myself (and my editing) from you; but few from me towards you. So yeah, you are involved. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgent answer

See, this is the problem that I have experienced with you from the outset of this problem Sandstein, in that you don't read what is written, but rather jump the gun entirely, ignoring what is written, accusing of issuing threats, wikilawyering and a host of other things. Read what I wrote in its entireity. I wrote explicitly, This is not a legal threat, before anyone accuses me of this, but according to Sandstein, this is the only option that I have, and it is an option that one has to consider. But, I won't do that, I will let basic common sense prevail. It was right there in the diff that you just posted, how could you not see it? Like I said, I will let common sense prevail, and I will remove libellous information on sight, from any article, no matter what subject it may be in, and whether that article is covered by any ban or not, as interpreted by yourself. I suggest you read WP:BLP some time. And I will report potentially libellous material to the BLP noticeboard. And you are right, the continued operation of Wikipedia does not depend on any one editor; but libel laws in the US, which WP:BLP has to adhere to, are such that if the subject whom the libel is directed towards is able to prove that information has been published and seen by an audience, they may have a pretty good case...the nature of WP makes this quite easy to prove...and my removing material which breaches WP:BLP is not a hindrance to the project, but rather a help...do you really think I am a vindictive prick that I would bring trouble to a project that I have dedicated a lot of my time to? And probably unknown to you, that I am still contributing to in my normal area of editing. I have removed BLP material from articles in the past that has been present for over 12 months or more, so one should be thankful for me removing such information, instead of letting it sit there and possibly leave the door open for problems. This is how I have always operated, and I will continue to operate. In fact Sandstein, my last question which was asked above was asked on purpose, just for me to see what your response would be, and whether you have actually thought things thru before answering. It is obvious you have not, particularly as you completely missed what I wrote above in my initial post. As to misjudging anything I may or may not do, I really don't have much faith in your judgement, when it is obvious you have no idea on how I approach such things, unless you can provide some diffs to back up your bad faith personal attack, where I have used issues such as reporting a BLP violation as a way of attacking others. Or wait, I can show you an article where I was getting attacked by both sides (at one stage) -- Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya - so just how do I deal with BLP violations again? Therefore, I see no reason to retract anything, as you have totally misread (or not read) and misunderstood what I wrote, that's not my fault now is it? Nor is it the first time this has occurred with yourself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Block comment

I've been observing the entirety of this discussion here and on ANI. It has gone on long enough, in my opinion. Russavia, you have engaged in some text book wikilawyering, in my opinion. I wouldn't say Sandstein's actions have necessarily been perfect. However, you have pushed the limits too far in this case. You have been repeatedly uncivil. You have not demonstrated much desire to change your behaviour, and most of the extended discussion has been your attempts to punch logical holes in the discretionary ban put in place by an administrator. In so doing, you mentioned that according to the logic of that admin, your only option would be to recommend legal action. You say this is not a legal threat, but this is very much the kind of wikilawyering/wikilogic disruption bans are intended to avoid. I'm sorry, but I've seen more than enough to ban you indefinitely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust this leave a question of what to do with me then? I, after all, should now be sanctioned for abetting wikilawyering or something to that effect? I don't know how closely you followed the thread and the discussions around it, but I am basically one administrator who supports Russavia's right to "punch of logical holes" in what I, too, see as an incompetent and unfair treatment by an administrator under influence of his self-admitted lack of personal comfort (tiredness etc.). I may not like the way Russavia is handling the situation any more than you do, and often think that he cares way too much about some things that in reality are not all that important, but I'm perfectly willing to give him a discount on the grounds of both extreme frustration and extreme passion for the subject that interests him the most. Not many people can stay rock-solid calm under duress, is it so hard to remember? Especially when what he has to say (and he raises a lot of valid points!) gets completely ignored by everyone but a handful of people? You yourself admit that Sandstein's actions may not have necessarily been perfect, and I myself would be more than willing to give him a good-faith discount as well, because he is only human and can screw up every now and then. But imperfect behavior breeds imperfect actions, and if, as a result of those actions we get a victim who screams for being unfairly beaten, should we arrest the victim for disturbing public peace instead of helping? I am absolutely, completely baffled with what is going on...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:43, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that these problems are not a one-off situation. Russavia has a long history of incivility and conflict with other users. The block I imposed was not solely for this one week of "wikilawyering" or for making one particular comment (that he would not retract) that is ambiguous as to whether it constitutes a legal threat or not. It is for the repeated incivility, lack of assuming good faith, and disruption that his edits have caused. Enough is enough. It's not even a close call in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|In light of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Concentrated_stalking_and_attacks_against_Russavia, I feel I have a right to participate in this discussion and provide info. I will limit my editing entirely to this issue.}} --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are willing to restrict yourself only to commenting on that issue for the time being, until someone can review the circumstances of your block in far greater detail, I am willing to unblock you. However, bear in mind you will be held to your word and the first edit not to that issue and/or not to AN/I will result in the block being reinstated until it can be further reviewed. Is this acceptable? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this Jeske, I agree by the terms that both you and I have stated above. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have communicated with Good Olfactory and he agrees that you should be permitted to take part in any ArbCom case concerning this incident. However, AC/N is not an ArbComm case page, and thus for violating the terms of your unblock I am reblocking you until such time as the case materializes. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have unblocked you to participate in the ArbComm case. Again, your edits are restricted to participation in the case. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jeske, sorry I didn't see the limitation to the AN/I...I misread that and misinterpreted it...my apologies...my bad. Thanks. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

Hi Russavia! I just wanted to say that somehow I was autoblocked yesterday as a result of your block and it brought my attention here. I hope the Arbcom case works out for you and you resume editing. If NVO vouches for you, then so do I. Best, DVD 06:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and support DVD. And also to NVO as well. I would post on his talk page, but I am not allowed to under the terms of my unblock. I hope all of these editors get what is so rightfully deserved, because for too long they have been allowed to get away with their stalking, harrassment and treating WP as a battleground, simply by denying it. Now there is no denying it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already more than enough evidence doing the rounds for you to be unblocked unconditionally. I think it would be a pleasant and concillitory gesture if Sandstein were the one to lift any sanctions against you. He has been, in a way, as much a victim as you. I hope he is big enough to see that. Giano (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano, as I am unable to edit any other page than my talk page, and the Arbcom pages, I am halfway sending an email to Sandstein...I hold no ill-will towards him, but I hope he recognises that this cabal have not only harrassed myself, but have also abused processes on WP in order to gain the upper hand in battleground conditions that they have created, fostered and advanced. As I am not allowed to discuss anything in relation to their editing, due to the ban that is in place I do sincerely hope that there will be some discussion with a view to at least lessening the ban that was implemented. I don't expect a full reprieve, as I do admit my responsibility, but at least it is now know that there are reasons behind what I may have done on occasion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, the sanctions against you were imposed because of your own conduct, i.e. for reasons unrelated to the matter now under arbitration, and as such, recent events are no reason for a modification of your sanctions, which remain in force insofar as I am concerned. As previously noted, I will not object if any other uninvolved administrator modifies the topic ban to an extent she or he deems appropriate and takes over its enforcement. If you have been the victim of any misconduct by others, the Arbitration Committee will determine this and decide about appropriate sanctions against the users at issue, but any misconduct by others does not mitigate or excuse your misconduct.  Sandstein  08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, sompe people are the victims of others, some ignorance and some naivity. You can decide for yourself into which category you fall. I'm sure someone will see the injustice of Russavia's predicament very shortly. It was good manners that insisted you should be asked first. Giano (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Preved!

I'll double check if there's anything interesting I can use in relation to the 2008 South Ossetia War Article. I'll look into the fork as well, it's only proper since I have the most discussion edits there. I'm calling dibs on that. Now, as for you - calm down! The only way that you can lose this, is to get angry and frustrated and provoked. Be careful. Don't type quickly in response. Take some time off. Go to the gym. Fight back, but let your mind, not your emotions do the fighting. I know how tough it is. So relax, and remember:

Наше имя - короткий удар штык-ножа, Что вгрызается в тело упруго... Бээмдэшки взревут на крутых виражах, Прорываясь сквозь слякоть и вьюгу.

Наше имя - "спецназ" - словно трассеров свист В южном небе над городом спящим. А восход над хребтом так обманчиво чист, Что не верится пулям свистящим.

Залит кровью поэтом воспетый Кавказ, В сердце ненависть врезалась жалом. Но дорогу ей грудью закроет спецназ - От беды нам бежать не пристало.

Здесь забыта любовь, и лишь кровная месть Распаляет безумием души. Президенты всё лгут, прочь отринута честь... Что им стоит присягу нарушить?!

Но последние силы собрав, мы идём - Трижды прокляты, преданы всеми... И в руках пулемёт захлебнётся огнём, Разрывая пространство и время.

Здесь без права на жизнь, без пощады война. С грязью смешана дружба народов... Но однажды - очнётся родная страна. Только мы не придём из похода.

1992.

There are times when everything seems hopeless. But if you keep on fighting, you will win. It was written in 1992. It was published after the 2008 South Ossetian War. Things change. Don't give up. After every tough battle, Justice tends to win. http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Stay cool

Russavia: User:NVO has sent you a hint of a watchful eye. Watchful eyes improve graveyard silence and promote subterranean POVs. Oh well, were was I... Listen, I must say a trivial thing: so far nothing has changed, and there is no evidence that anything will, so stay cool. The pack is still on you, and so is the law. Right now - "now" is at least over this weekend and the next week (I hope Arbcom will examine this exceptional case ASAP) - you don't need to prove anything, neither blast anyone. Right now, as the king told Mozart in Amadeus, "you're passionate but you do not persuade", and every word that does not persuade works against you. Life goes on: enjoy the sunshine in real life and stay cool, there and here, I cannot emphasize it more. Whenever you feel you must write anything here, think again and leave it till tomorrow. Dump your habit of writing half-screen TLDR rants, make it not more than three lines... and don't post it. Cheers, NVO (talk) listening to We can work it out.

Thanks for your support NVO, I appreciate it. I know that you and other editors have seen my complaints in the past in relation to being mega-harrassed, without much being done about it, and I know that I have to try and stick to the facts at this Arbcom, but I also will need to put forward my opinion on how I have felt on WP, but without rambling, as you point out I sometimes too....like now see...ha...but if the emails on this mailing list are as bad as what Alex says they are, then I trust his judgement on this and I think they will pretty much speak for themselves. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case

What kind of evidence are you going to post on the new ArbCom case? I'm probably going to focus on diffs that concern me (more or less), so I'd suggest that you post diffs about the various provocations against yourself, such as the sockpuppet accusations, Termer's disruptive nomination of Russia-SO relations (which was speedily kept), etc. because I think ArbCom should see those diffs as well. Offliner (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly ArbCom would like me to post, but I posted this: [2]. Offliner (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Arbcom has now posted a list of the participants of this list at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Topic_ban. I am not surprised by any of them, but one, being involved, that being Miacek. I will be limiting my evidence to instances that I have felt that there is off-wiki collaboration going on and which has been deemed by myself to be harrassment or suspected to be teaming in order to be disruptive. One instance I have already made known, both on the AN/I thread and to Arbcom via email. The rest of the evidence that I present will have to be gone thru, because as you probably know, there have been many instances. I will, of course, be posting it in due course. I will look over your evidence also to see if that rings any bells with me as well. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reeducation

What time does your train leave? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Only kidding. Sorry. Probably not helpful. I was interested to see some editors come to your defense and I do hope you can avoid an extended period in the gulag. It's no fun at all. I haven't followed events in detail, but I hope you can get it all sorted and get back to editing soon. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Boarhouse notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He can't comment on issues unrelated to the recent events without risking a block. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:08, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Really? I saw something about the block being lifted for the time being, but maybe that was just a proposal. Sorry. Not trying to bait. I'm ready to remove this section, but my silly comments have been responded to now. Gulp. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Russavia, is that I remember how helpful he was, when I made a newbie mistake. I have committed oh sin of sins, something worthy of hanging; I have placed an NPOV vote call on Russia's Talkpage, instead of WikiProject Russia's talkpage. Instead of jumping the wagon, and trying to turn this into a massive scandal, like some editors tried to do, Russavia patiently, coolly and calmly explained to me where I messed up. On the one hand there were some anti-Russian people going "lynch HistoricWarrior007!" on the other there were pro-Russian and sane people going "WTF?! Are you guys out of your minds?!" and in the middle of it, there was Russavia, patiently explaining the mistake, my "mortal sin" to me. Stuff like that isn't easily forgotten. :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎, we have been asked to clip File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg, which is the main image of Crown Fountain, from 50 to approximately 10 seconds. I do not know anything about .ogg files and am unsure if my co-author knows how to edit them either. I have contacted many people who have been unable to help. I see that you have produced one of the two WP:FS files that are videos. You may have some expertise that few seem to have. Are you willing and able to edit such a file type? Leave a comment at the FAC if you will be able to help. I am fearful that we may have to remove the video from our WP:FAC until we can get it edited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tony, at the present time I am banned from editing Wikipedia, with the only things I am able to edit is my talk age and any pages relating to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list, hence I am not allow to comment on anything that isn't related to the case on Wikipedia. Thanks for contacting me. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about your ban. Would you consider chopping the file and emailing it to me? I could email you my email addres.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue now resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about Russian aircraft abbreviations

At http://web.archive.org/web/20080210053540/http://www.aeroflot.ru/eng/company.asp?ob_no=740&chron=1#1996 I noticed that it referred to the "Òu-230" and "Òu-330" - I cannot determine which aircraft they are supposed to refer to. What are they? - Also, is this the Aeroflot headquarters? http://www.flickr.com/photos/88153562@N00/247394439/ - If so, I'll see if I can ask the original photographer if he/she wants to relicense it for Wikipedia. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia is currently not allowed to comment on this, see further up. Cheers. sephia karta | di mi 07:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I answered at User:WhisperToMe talk page. NVO (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you NVO. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of Russia

Hi there, I thought you may be interested by the recent developments around this article. You say you especially like it on your tp, so there's a user Kransky who reverted or deleted some helluvalot of text there and did it right after you were banned. And it looks like he is really active AN/I supporter of banning you from all the diplomacy-related articles. Looks like a sort of disruption of your work. FeelSunny (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged legal threats issued by myself and unblock request

{{unblock|This unblock request is in relation to the indef block handed down by Good ol'Factory. As per WP:NLT, and what I stated at User_talk:Russavia#Urgent_answer above, as it clear that what I wrote was misinterpreted by others, and they have not understood what I wrote and what I meant by what I wrote, I am now unambiguously withdrawing any mention of any legal threat by myself in regards to removing information which is in violation of one of our core policies; WP:BLP. The community has my word that under the terms of my topic ban as it stands right now, which includes ALL articles which covers anything to do with Russia or Russian people, I will not edit those articles until such time as the second ban is taken to WP:AE, even if it is to remove a blatant BLP violation, and I will not contact the subject of the article advising them that they are being slandered on WP. I have also posted an explanation and retraction at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Russavia, in response to another editor who seems to recognise that the legal threat was a hypothetical, which was my intent. Therefore, please consider this notice to be a full retraction from myself of any legal threat. --Russavia Dialogue 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)}}

I have commented out the unblock request. You have been unblocked for 4 days now, and so there is no reason to have an unblock request. You should be aware that this unblock is pursuant to an active Arbitration case, and you should tread carefully during this time. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your unblock conditions clearly state that you are unblocked ONLY to comment on the cited arbcom case, and that you can and will be reblocked if you do anything but that. See block log comments for more info. --Jayron32 00:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Russavia, We will probably never know the source of the email archive leak. It could be a disillusioned insider, or a planted agent, or a hacker. But I came up with an idea for a nickname for that person(s). I suggest calling him "Epifan" (Епифан). Can you tell why? ;)(Igny (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

I can tell why, but I definitely can't tell who. I suspect Епифан will be forever someone that will become legend. :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Hi Russavia, could you please go through this section and convert quotes to paraphrase? The Committee directed that quoting the contents of emails should be avoided. The subject of emails should be fine, but the contents aren't. I've blanked the section temporarily until you can address the issue; please feel free to restore it from the history once you've converted the quoting of email contents to paraphrase. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel for advising me of this, I will get onto that straight away. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are You still banned from most pages

It has just occurred to me that Sandstein may still be preventing you from commenting in general on most pages. If not, perhaps you have something to add to this discussion here. Regards. Giano

Hi Giano, nice to have you back from your vacation. I am still enjoying mine. I have posted an unambiguous retraction of the alleged legal threat above, but it seems there is some confusion. It is appears that the Arb case that I am now involved in, may or may not address the issue of the indef block for WP:NLT. Either way, I have contacted the clerk at User_talk:Daniel#My_block.2Funblock, and he will be seeking clarification from the committee, as to whether they will deal with the indef block, or not. As it appears to me, the committee considers that to be a community decision, and it may be that I will be left in limbo, or perhaps they will see that I have posted a retraction above, and order the block to be lifted, or perhaps they will turn it back to the community, in which case if an admin won't officially lift the indef block, meaning reblocking me and instantly unblocking me in line with the topic ban handed down by Sandstein, I will have to take it to WP:AN, or another appropriate forum. So, obviously, this portion of my September 2009 roller coaster ride may take a few days, and I don't mind waiting for clarification from the committee, so long as it isn't much later than mid-week next week. Otherwise, I will probably just be left in complete limbo for the next 3 months, or however long this damned Arb case takes. So let me answer your question in short. NO. :)) In regards to the other, I have seen it, and if I were unblocked, I would comment, but I can't. Anyway, I should get back to presenting more evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Russavia - can you believe there is still more to come? OHH THE HUMANITY!! Oh, and Giano, thanks for opining at various venues in relation to my topic banning and the like -- it is nice to see there are still some decent people around here (along with many of the people who have posted above of course, not to leave them out) -- and that editing on WP isn't all stalking and harrassment, but also can be a collegial environment too. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Me? decent? I suspect you in a majority of one there. The issues and case you are involved with is very complex, far more complex than most people think and need a great deal of deliberation and thought. It seems likely you will be blocked for the next three months, perhaps that is necessary, I don't know my knowledge (and interest) in Russia and its former territories stopped at the Baroque period. However, Sandstein was/is a bully and an easily led tool (NB: "T"), and needed sorting, he has been, I can do more for you, it's up to Wikipedia now to decide what sort of "community" they want. Good luck. Giano (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This "tell me I'm good" "review" is nothing but a filibuster shifting attention from the main case and garnering "consensus" from fellow cops. Not worth the time anyway. NVO (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42 is an interesting archive is it not? Look at my evidence which I have already presented, with a heap more to come of course, and have a look at happenings on that particular page (especially the team work), and see how lightly some got off. Then compare it to my ban. I am thinking of adding more of this into evidence somehow. What do you think? --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for this. You explained it now. I am paranoid, after all. If you could answer my another question (you know what it is; over the email perhaps?), that could dispell most of my concerns. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which "another question" you are talking about. Feel free to post the question here, and I will answer it here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can not ask the question because I am afraid of your response. Note that I now removed this segment in my Evidence but you still refer to it. If you want to refer at this episode, that's fine. But then I will have to restore some of it back.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask the question here and I will answer it. Got a whole heap of people watching my talk page who will see how I respond, and will kick my ass if I say something out of line. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not want my question to appear in your evidence. But I will have to restore the diff above in some form because you refer to it in your evidence.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If asked here, I will not enter this discussion into any evidence. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will simply modify this section and others to be more consistent with facts, and you may remove or keep whatever you wish in your part. After completing my evidence section, I am going to ask clerk to block my account indefinitely. I had enough.Biophys (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A few respectful words

Having slept on the matter, you do deserve more reply than I gave yesterday. As you may be aware, I went on wikibreak for a few days and came back to a big surprise. At the point where I left you were contesting a topic ban and I was urging everyone to have the Committee review it. Upon return, you had been indeffed and then given a limited unblock. Another editor's account had been compromised. The list had come out, Piotrus had been provisionally desysopped, and an arbitration case had opened. Whew!

Catching up with events, I was amazed that it had progressed so far without any attempt to vet the material ArbCom had received. You and I probably agree here: that's something ArbCom should be doing (as in should already have done). But they didn't and more than one arbitrator was even arguing against that kind of check on a theoretical basis. So--with a peculiar combination of hard work and stubbornness--I offered to fill the gap. Every member of the list agreed.

To quote what I wrote to DC76, "For an example of how I handled a sensitive issue in the past, see the historical/nonblanked version of this page. For a summary of how that ultimately turned out, see here and here." Durova³²⁰ 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova, the assertion that another editors account had been compromised is an assertion only, and the only people asserting it are those on the email list. You are aware that Tymek disclosed his password on the email list and invited other list members to use it as they see fit? This means that he invited others to sock and meat puppet with his account.

As to Arbcom not vetting the materials, I have faith that Arbcom are doing this. And a major way that they are able to do that is by reading the evidence presented by numerous editors. For example, I present evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#WP:OUTING_and_harrassment_by_list_members_on_myself and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_evidence_by_Piotrus which details my long-held suspicions that I was being stalked and harrassed as a team effort by numerous editors. If one looks at the evidence presented, it would be clear that these editors were stalking and harrassing myself, ostensibly in an effort to get into a corner, whereby I would react, and then they could then complain to admins and have me banned from WP. Arbcom are able to ascertain this for themselves, as they have the archives, and my evidence matches up.

What I understood these editors wanted you to do was to investigate whether these emails are fake. The emails being fake is just another objection that some of these editors have used - first they were fake, then stolen, then fake, then stolen, then hacked, then whistleblowed, etc, etc. In order to ascertain whether they are fake or not, one would need a certain degree of technical expertise in this area. And it is that what I am asking you. What is your technical expertise in the area of determining whether emails are fake or not? That's my only concern. Well it isn't really a concern as such, but anyway, that's the question that I was asking of yourself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Peace offering

Dear Russavia, to prove to you that my words are not empty, here's an article I've just written on the (hopefully uncontroversial) piece of Polish-Russian history: Polish–Muscovite War (1577–1582). I know that you are still restricted in your editing, but if you'd have any suggestions as to how I should improve that article, please post them here or on my talk page (I think you are allowed that) and I'll try to address them; if you'd like to rewrite parts of the article, please do so as well, and I'll review your changes and if I agree with them, incorporate them in the article (giving you full credit, of course). Note that such cooperation is allowed per WP:BAN. I hope that this will be a first step towards improving our relationship (and hey, it can hardly get worse, so it can only get better, right?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rusavia, I don't get much involved in the recent accusations/discussions but this "peace offer" (even I was never "at war" with you:)) I like very much and I would be more that happy to contribute. You can post your proposed changes or discuss them on my talk page also. I could be a "peace bridge" between you and Piotrus if you want:). Best.--Jacurek (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My reply

Piotrus, first off, know that I am only unblocked at the present time so that I can participate in the current Arbcom proceedings. Other than that, I remain under a complete indef block, and even if I was not indef blocked, I would be unable to edit any such article, as I have been placed under a topic ban by User:Sandstein whereby for the next six months I am banned from editing anything broadly construed relating to the Soviet Union, its successor states, including the Baltic States, Russia or Russian people. So much so, I would even be unable to insert this photo into the Hugo Chavez article, and so much so that there is absolutely nothing else that I am able to edit on WP, as I have absolutely zero interest in shit like Pokemon, or the rest of the pop culture rubbish that tends to dominate this project. I have requested an official lifting of the indef block, but it seems that admins there want to await the conclusion of the Arb case; but it is entirely unlikely that the Arbcom will address this issue in the case, therefore I will likely remain under indef block for the duration of the case, which may take months given the amount of evidence and other issues. So I am not able to take you up on this so long as any bans on me are in place.

Secondly, and this is the most important part in relation to your message.

I am a productive editor, and I realise that we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, and this is supposed to be done in a collegial environment. And I simply want to be able to do that in peace. I do not want any battleground conditions, and have always said it would be great to get rid of the utter bullshit in this area of editing. Whilst we all have our own opinions, and I have even on occasion expressed my personal opinion on issues on talk pages, my edits in mainspace are always meticulously sourced, and done from as neutral POV as is humanly possible, and I always try to provide all sides of an issue when creating articles. The reason that many people may see me as pro-Putin is that often I see articles and it is missing a major POV, and often this is done deliberately by editors when articles are created, as they are here to engage in advocacy. Very few articles I have written require editors to come in and add tons of POV, as I try to ensure that all POV is covered from the very beginning.

Since November/December 2008, I have basically been the target of a systematic campaign of stalking and harrassment, and this campaign was widely discussed on your email list -- 10% of emails deal with myself in some way - more than other subject -- discussions which took place included stalking my edits, teaming up on myself, harrassment, etc, and some of this also included actual admissions by list members in ways to get me to be incivil in order to report me. I have known that I have been stalked and harrassed by certain members for the last 10 months -- WP is literally plastered with my pleadings for assistance in helping to deal with what I knew was going on, but nothing was ever done (and the community itself needs to take some responsibility for that). Because of the consistency and veracity of the harrassment from certain editors, I have lost my cool on occasion and lashed out, and as the stalking and harrassment has increased, so at times has my incivility. So bad has it been, that I have considered walking away from the project altogether on numerous occasions. But you know what, I still believe the project has a purpose and has some potential, and participating here is worth it. But I can tell you, that the harrassment is not worth it at all. And because of the length and nature of the harrassment that has taken place upon myself, whilst it is still not OK for me to lash out, it is an obvious reaction when one has been harrassed such as I have been.

So you can imagine my surprise in April of this year, when I stumbled across by pure chance that thread started by yourself on AN/I in regard to myself. And this was done after Biophys had sent emails to your list, and he even gave you links to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F and User_talk:Russavia/Archive_6#Want_to_run_a_checkuser_on_me.3F_Well_read_on......, where you can see that this had already been addressed, and that it was considered by several users other than myself to be harrassment. But yet you posted it anyway, in what can only be considered as continuation of that harrassment on myself. At the time, I thought it a little too convenient that this subject should be raised on AN/I, and the only person to post was Biophys, hence why I asked you the questions I did.

This is just one incident of many involving the harrassment of myself by editors, but it is also the one incident that for some months has made me want to go off at you, although I haven't, because one would think that an admin who is supposedly a trusted member of the community would be party to such a thing. It was the stated intent of several editors on the list to make my wiki time absolute hell. And they succeeded, and you were an integral part of that. It wasn't simply a case of me being discussed on the list a few times, and we all know that.

I am an adult, and I live in the real world and I was brought up with the value system that people need to take responsibility for their actions. This is why I take responsibility for my actions, and if I have been uncivil to others, I sincerely apologise. And I will cop any fair punishment on the chin. Although with the latest drama, I did lash out afterwards, and I was a bit of a prick to Sandstein, and I apologise for that. But being an adult and living in the real world, I also expect others to admit their wrongs, because the only way that any reconciliation can take place is for past wrongs to be admitted and explained. This is something that I have had to go thru myself in the real world on occasion, by swallowing my own pride and coming to terms with events that had occurred. And I see no reason why WP should be any different.

It is fine that you wish to look forward, but I am sorry, I can not be a part of that so long as there is no acknowledgement or explanation by a single one of you in relation to what I have been put through the last 10 months, and there seems to be absolutely zero remorse at all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In good faith I can understand your frustration. But please consider this: how often have I, on wiki (or even in our email exchange) commented about you? 2-3 times? Yes, I started the ANI thread, but I didn't name you. And once the matter was resolved, I didn't bring it back. Yes, they were others who interacted with you more often, but frankly, I didn't read most of what they were writing - I was (and still) am not really interested in you, since we rarely edit the same topics. I can try to convince the editors who commented about you more often to adopt a voluntary restriction so that they in the future would not comment about you (and in exchange, you may want to do the same - all of us should be commenting on content, not contributors). If we can try to patch things between us, I also see no reason why you should be banned, and I think other members of our group could also ask, collectively, for you to be unbanned, so we can all try in good faith to join a mediation and work together on content creation, avoiding discussing one another. You said above you still believe in the project. So do I. Can we put our personal issues aside and start again? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Sandstein needs support" !!! Giano (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please continue any discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop#Restart. Thanks --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still officially blocked from editing - any advice?

It has been five days since I posted this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_official_unblock. Daniel contacted the Arbcom members to request clarification from them as to my unblock, and has heard nothing back from them.

Does anyone have any advice on what I should do next? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, like the rest of us you should find someting better to do with your time. You have been abused and insulted; it seems the Arbcom and Admins don't give a stuff about your block -only saving the face of a few arrogant Admins. So walk! Like the rest of us, you probably won't, but it would serve wikipedia right if you did. Giano (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|To say that I am very disillusioned here is a mild understatement. Having a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_official_unblock I see 6 for, 4 against, 2 wait until Arbcom finishes, and 1 which hasn't made known opinion either way. I take responsibility for my own actions and I have retracted any notion of any legal threat. I have offered to extend the topic ban, initially to all EE topics for the duration of the Arbcom, as a sign of good faith on my part, but this would need to discussed if implemented. I can understand why a couple of the admins would like to wait until the conclusion of the Arbcom, but I am a big boy, and I know what I can and can't do. Whilst it may be possible that the Arbcom would cover me in their decision, this is highly unlikely, as per the links provided in my initial link above, it is obvious that they believe this is a matter for the community. Even if they were to cover myself in the final decision and exonerate me, as 1 of the "wait until Arbcom finishes" opinions state, this case may take months. Now that the serial and systematic harrassment of myself is now evident and in the open (if admin is not aware of what I talk of, refer to my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#WP:OUTING_and_harrassment_by_list_members_on_myself), I will be able to keep myself under control. Although I may not be interested in subjects outside of the scope of Russia, and I may not edit much at all, there is little point to keeping me indef blocked with the exception of participating in the Arbcom, particularly as both sides (Arbcom and admins) are now handballing the problem to the other, and no-one will bite the bullet and make a stand on one way or the other. So yeah, I am feeling like a football here, and I would like to know exactly where I stand. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)}]

Russavia, I would strongly recommend you shouldn't go ahead on your own and start editing before someone has given you a clear go-ahead on the basis of administrator consensus. The situation is still messy, and you are just making it messier this way. Given what is at stake here, I think waiting a bit wouldn't be that big of a sacrifice, would it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Go to Wikisource and work on documents about Russia. If you find a djvu file on something that interests you I will teach you how to add it to Wikisource. Your only experience on the wiki has been in a Battleground, so you must have some misconceptions of about how wikis work. Wikisource is a good wading pond to work things out in. Once people have some non-Battleground history to examine, they will be willing to make a stand. Right now people don't know where you stand that is the problem. The evidence is compromised. Which isn't the same thing as invalidated. Prove yourself on Wikisource and give everyone time to get over this situation and things will be much easier for you.--BirgitteSB 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your only experience on the wiki has been in a Battleground - what? 95% of Russavia's work has been on articles totally unrelated to any "battleground." For example, he has created List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria and Slava Zaitsev. Where is the battleground in those? Are you sure you checked his contributions before making this accusation? Offliner (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an accusation of wrongdoing. My quick look at talk page edits didn't key me into experience with positive collaboration. I wasn't looking to prove anything though. Really it is just a suggestion.--BirgitteSB 06:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BirgitteSB: I had absolutely no problem collaborating with Russavia although my political affiliation is closer to that of Biophys rather than either Russavia or Offliner's. Battleground is just the tip of the iceberg. Just in case, avia stands for aviation which is (was) Russavia's another specialty along with the foreign affairs of Russia. NVO (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is fair to call Russavia's edits a battleground. He does not come to Wikipedia to be disruptive, although he would make bold changes without considering the views of other editors, and would unnecessarily assume bad faith.

The guy needs mentoring, not a ban. Kransky (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request

Hello, Russivia! The job which you gave me is done. See this if it is eligible:

Faili hili linatokana na tovuti ya Rais wa Shirikisho la Kirusi na lina Hakimiliki. Faili hili lina leseni chini ya Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. Kwa kifupi: uko huru kulisambaza na kulirekebisha faili hili iwapo utataja www.kremlin.ru.

Barua ya kibali kutoka kwa Katibu wa Rais wa Shirikisho la Kirusi inapatikana kwa idhini ya Kremlin-English.pdf.

Shalom!--_{Mwanaharakati}^(Longa) 08:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you muddyb, I have updated the template on Commons accordingly. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

So can you edit any article you wish? Or are you still partially blocked? I wish I would've known about the campaign against you because if I did I would've put in a word on your behalf. Don't let anybody tell you that censorship and propaganda doesn't exist in the West. --Tocino 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am topic banned for the next 6 months from editing anything relating to, or even mentioning, Russia or any Russians, broadly construed. So I am actually quite limited as to what I am able to edit for that time. One can only hope that the Arbcom is going to address this somewhat in their final decision, because as you are probably aware the last 12 months have been a right pain in the ass for myself - well not all of those 12 months have been, just those times when I have had to deal with those who have been stalking and harrassing myself. But I am not holding my breathe that they will address it though. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)