Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 6 July 2009

Economy of Murmansk Oblast

Well, while I think it's rather concise, it is still much, much better than nothing :) The information itself is good, but in my opinion the prose could use better structure; but then again—structure would come as more information is added. I am also a little wary of the sources you used—they are by no means bad, but I'd prefer to see something more academic (and yes, I understand that academic sources on the economy of Murmansk Oblast may not exactly be easy to find). All in all, however, the section is quite solid and useable as written. Keep up the good work!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, April 17, 2009 (UTC)

I know that the prose is concise and not very good. The sentences are not well "connected." One of the reason why the prose is so bad is that I find it hard to explain something in my own words without changing the meaning of the information. Therefore I usually follow the wording used in the sources precisely without adapting it. But do you think the chapter contains approximately the right amount of info? About the sources: of course, academic sources would be the best, but they (especially recent ones) seem to be hard to find.

Do you happen to know if there are any guidelines concerning articles about regions? For example, in which order the chapters should be, what exactly goes into the chapters, (for example does average income go into demographics or into the economy chapter?) I've also expanded the economy chapters in Republic of Karelia#Economy, Tatarstan#Economy and Dagestan#Economy. Maybe you have a few improvements suggestions for those as well? Looks like this is a neglected subject, so there's lot of "easy" work to be done there. Offliner (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We used to have WP:WikiProject Russian federal subjects which recommended a specific format for all federal subject articles. I had to close that project (and move it to WP:RUSSIA) due to the lack of interest (I was pretty much the only person active there), but the articles on the federal subjects still pretty much conform to those guidelines, and we don't have anything better to replace them with anyway.

Content- and balance-wise, for such underdeveloped articles as Murmansk Oblast it doesn't really matter where you start—you are going to skew these articles anyway because they are so short, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. As more content is added, it always helps me to think of these articles as summaries of lower-level articles—for example, the Economy section would be a summary of the economy of Murmansk Oblast article, the History section—a summary of the history of Murmansk Oblast article, and so on. So, at first I would normally cram as much information into those section as possible, then think about splitting those sections to separate articles as they grow, and replacing the moved information with its summary. For Start-level articles such as the one on Murmansk Oblast, like I said before, any information is better than nothing—at least now there is something to start working with! Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, April 20, 2009 (UTC)

lazy editing part II

Hey there. I argued this point to Igny before, but same goes to you: Please be more careful with your reverts. You reverted the edits by multiple editors without checking that all of them were indeed bad edits. Kwiki had even correctly marked his edit as a typo fix. Please spend the 20 seconds to check your revert diff that indeed everything should be reverted. You saving those 20 seconds cost me 10 minutes to go back over all those edits and find the part that should not have been reverted. --Xeeron (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the series and saw that it contained only one single legitimate edit. Since there was a vandalism edit before that one, is was much faster to revert the whole series. Undoing vandalism seemed to be much more important than preserving a simple typo fix. If the legitimate edit had been bigger, I would have done something else. Offliner (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the fact that you used the revert option, but you should have kept the legit edit. Those typo edits have value just as every other edit (and in a way even more, because the article is watched by plenty of POV hawks, but very few English language hawks ...). --Xeeron (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your work on Russian apartment bombings

Title says it all Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I hope we can achieve a balanced and informative article. Maybe you will now be editing regularly too? Offliner (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope so. I do have a lot of other stuff to do as well, though. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk

Why do you remove notice that he was found not guilty by British court ? Doing so is against WP:BLP policy. This is supported by many references in this article. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the removed statement carefully. The British court did not say that the charges against him are "fabricated." It said: ""It would be unjust and oppressive to return Mr Zakayev to Russia." Please note the difference. I was only removing the unsourced statement not corresponding to reality from the article. You reinserted it. Thus, it is you who has broken WP:BLP. Offliner (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read carefully what you have deleted (the diff above). You deleted the following: "However UK court found him not guilty due to lack of evidence.". I can see that we have a lot of disagreements. That's fine. You challenge me - I provide more sourced materials and create more articles. Next article in my list will be Operation Successor. Thanks to you.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that because of my actions you are going to create even more conspiracy theory articles as a revenge? If so, please stop being childish. I'm sure we can resolve our differences on the article talk pages, without waging a "war". Offliner (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let's talk. Why are you chasing me through numerous articles you never edited before and revert my edits? Is that because you do not like me, because you love Russia, because you like Putin, or because of another reason? What should I do to make you feel better and stop the editorial conflicts? Biophys (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk or not to talk is certainly your choice, but if we can not resolve this problem ourselves, asking an outside advice is inevitable, and I will do it as soon as time allows.Biophys (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm annoyed by your biased editing and your breaching of the guidelines, such as WP:SYNTH (e.g. Internet operations by Russian secret police), WP:POVFORK (e.g. Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings), WP:LINKFARM (e.g. Federal Security Service), WP:OWN (e.g. Web brigades) and, of course, WP:NPOV, in multiple articles. I don't think I have followed your edits, except for perhaps Anatoliy Golitsyn. And even there I'm only supporting the anonymous editor's attempts to make the article more balanced. It seems to me that your objective in Misplaced Pages is to expose the "evils" of the Russian/Soviet government and to promote conspiracy theory books. You also have the habit of WP:OWNing the articles where you are attempting to do these things. If someone tries to make the article more balanced, you will revert everything a hundred times. Because of these reasons, it is hard for me (and for many others as well) to assume good faith on your part, which leads to increasing tensions. If you want to resolve the editorial conflicts, you should work on the problems I just mentioned, step back from conspiracy theory related articles for a while and avoid controversial edits. I feel that WP is not the place for promoting conspiracy theories for which there is little direct evidence. If you want to do this, I sincerely recommend that you consider getting a part-time job as a journalist. Offliner (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not respond for too long. I have filed a Checkuser report already. I believe you are actually Petri Krohn. Let's see.Biophys (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not him. I hope you didn't waste too much time on writing the report. Offliner (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all your statements contradict facts. I always use best available sources. If there are books, I use books by best experts on the subject like David Satter or Felshtinsky. If there are no books, I use other WP:RS publications . I created only a few articles (among hundreds) about conspiracy theories to remove such theories from main articles. In fact it was you who created Liberation Army of Dagestan, and there is no such Army. No credible theories (the "governmental" or alternative one) claim that such "Army" was involved in the bombings. Then why create the article? As about you following and reverting my edits, this is also easy to prove, as I will show if necessary. Since your reply is basically a denial and blaming me of something I never did, this conversation is hardly productive.Biophys (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Offy, I actually like this edit. Apparently Kavkazcenter.com is not a reliable source for such statements, but it's ok for editors to insert info into articles of Putin being a paedophile using equally dubious sources (this of course being Zakayev's site). You've done a good job with the Zakayev article, and you have interpreted the sources correctly; courts don't hold trials when considering extradition requests for that is not their purpose, so removing WP:OR is the right thing to do. And don't worry about Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Petri Krohn, this appears to be fishing because one doesn't like that you are holding them to task for ensuring that the fact we are an encyclopaedia, and not a propaganda source, is being held to. Of course, others are giving pointers along the way. If you need any help with Russian sources or anything like that, you know that you need only ask and I will help with this. --Russavia 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit Removing the A* links

I will have you reported for removing relevant links from the A* Search Algorithm wiki... Cease and Desist... Removing solid information from Misplaced Pages is doing more harm to the community than good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.24.96 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool Head Award

Just wanted to thank you, for being the cool headed one again at the 2008 South Ossetia War Article. If you weren't editing that article, we'd probably have a civil war between the editors right now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He was warned....

I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biophys_continuing_harrassment, for the continuation of accusations against editors is egregious, particularly when he has been warned against such behaviour just in the last few days. That he is continuing this harrassment against yourself is just not on. --Russavia 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these continuous accusations have to stop. Note that Biophys also called me "an SPA," which is both wrong and in my book amounts to a personal attack. I have no doubt that even when the CheckUser proves negative (which it will), Biophys will not stop making accusations. Some admin action is needed to stop this. Do you think I should drop a comment at the admins' noticeboard as well, or would it be unnecessary? Offliner (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to pop into the AN there is no reason you shouldn't; attempting to skew it being run by accusing you of being a SPA, sharing accounts, sockpuppeting, etc, etc. It's harrassment, and an obvious team effort on the part of Biophys (you being his content opponent) and Digwuren/Martintg (Petri's content opponent). I also have my doubts about the AN the other day on myself; you'll notice that it was started by Piotrus after he received a question from "an editor", and he notified "the editor" (not on any talk page though) and then Biophys pops in, with "the editor" never making an appearance; it was all too convenient for my liking, and given Digwuren's post on Colchicum's talk page, without any notification of any shape or form on my talk page, that was obviously a WP:TEAM set up to continue the delusional accusations on WP. It's actually funny, if I didn't have to have some WP:OVERSIGHT done due to Biophys' continued accusations of myself being a web brigades member and also possible outing, I would never have seen that thread the other day, as WP:AN isn't on my watchlist. His posting the sockpuppet report is also obvious harrassment, given that he threatened to pointishly create yet another conspiracy theory article, all because you dared to hold him to task for his OR on the Zakayev article. If you post on the AN, be honest in anything you write, don't lie through your back teeth like others do, and you are right, it will ever stop. I've said my part on that AN, for I am not going to allow them to detract from the harrassment. Having said that, welcome to the inner workings of the brains of Wikipedians; its not a very sane place to be at times. I also have something else to mention to you, but will not do so here, so I hope that you accept email. --Russavia 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 Georgian troop mutiny

On 5 May, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Georgian troop mutiny, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy V-E Day!

Today 100₈ years ago, one of the Three Major Aggressors of the era surrendered. Turning their face away from warfare and towards building a better future instead, the German people worked diligently to redeem their sins — which were great indeed — and through Wirtschaftswunder, contributed to one of the longest periods of peace and prosperity in Europe in the recorded history.

Three months and a week later, another of the Three Major Aggressors surrendered on the 対日戦勝記念日. The 日本人 forsook war forever, concentrated on rebuilding, and through 高度経済成長 made Japan a land known for アニメ, 可愛い, and ロボット. (And, of course, for cute anime robots.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 IIHF World Championship

On 11 May, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 IIHF World Championship, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Kazan helicopters

What's the point of inserting RTS link into KVZ article? It's not a public company anymore: all control is under Oboronprom; there were no free market stock deals in the last 12 months (check RTS stats - the $73,091 handled in the past 12 months is marketmaker's mandatory deals). Last more or less substantial trades were in 2006. Technically, it's still listed but it's misleading the unsuspecting reader. NVO (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is no point. I'll remove the link. Offliner (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abkhazia-Germany relations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Abkhazia-Germany relations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abkhazia-Germany relations. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kober 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

After the Russian apartment bombings page was unprotected, you began edit warring yet again. You have been blocked for 31 hours. Nakon 05:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia, not pro-putin pages

Please, think for a second. We are doing encyclopedia not pro-Putin pages. In my point of view you are just trying to forcibly defend everything in Russian point of view, and not try to find some truth or neutral view for the article. For example in cases of Bäckman and Anton you have just forgtton what is rational. Peltimikko (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the edits on the article talk pages. No personal attacks please. Offliner (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re (talk)

Hi, Offliner - thanks for your post. As someone who hardly cares for Estonian political issues and Russian internal politics, I have to say, my own treatment being a case in point, that I'm incensed about the constant harrassment meted out to those who fall foul of Digwuren's crew, which seems to be endlessly received from this particular crew even for things as insignificant to their area of reverting as a marginally tangential article here or there–for the most part, this is why I have essentially preferred to stay out of the worst of topics, reather merely dealing with the illegitimate political attacks against productive users as far as the aforementioned crew is concerned. It's really a shame that some users have an interest in turning WP:Encyclopedia into a WP:Battleground.

I wasn't surprised at all by Biophys' response to your comments–there are the editors who politicize and there are the editors who polistalk.

I hope some decency prevails soon.

Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Decency probably won't prevail any time soon. For example, I'm not allowed to add anything anything to the Bäckman article: . My additions were from a reliable source, and Bäckman's views certainly are relevant to Bäckman article, just as the Estonian criticism of him (that the article is so full of.) Obviously, it is Martintg and his friends who decide what can be added and what not. This removal is obviously against Misplaced Pages policies, but there isn't much that I can do.

As a sidenote, it probably is a good idea to stay away from certain subjects to spare ones nerves. For example, I don't even want to read Soviet occupation of Baltic states or to have anything to do with the mess that is going on in that article. Fortunately, I'm currently only interested in modern Russia, and not in the history of Soviet Union, so I don't have to expose myself to every POV-filled article. Offliner (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fucking Lunatic Deletion

Please let me know if your article "Fucking Lunatic" is not restored. It should NOT have been speedy deleted as it did not satisfy the guidlines. If you recieve no response from the admin who deleted it, i will investigate it myself. Kind Regards ZooPro (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As i noted on the admins page, in further consideration i do feel it would be best just to place a mention on the article. Instead of creating a whole new article. ZooPro (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetian election ITN

Ah, you beat me to it; I was thinking of doing the same :-) Óðinn (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yelena Maglevannaya

As somebody who's familiar with the FINROSFORUM, would you like to write an article on Yelena Maglevannaya? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As for another related interesting topic, you will probably appreciate this set of recommendations by the UN, this newspiece from the European Parliament, this colourful report from the Network for Education & Academic Rights, this report by the Coalition Prava Detyam, or perhaps this report concerning rise of neo-Nazi attacks on minorities in a certain country. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And of course, Russia has established a reputation for bizarre serial killings. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are surely important subjects, but I'm not too interested at the moment - unless the anti-Russian propaganda department of KAPO wants to give me some incentive ;) Offliner (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know your wikiservices were up for bidding. I always thought you were ideological. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you won't show up if I start Yelena Maglevannaya? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I started. Peltimikko (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can Chinese immigrants in Russia vote in Duma elections? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about human rights, maybe we should concentrate on more pressing things. Would you like to create 2009 Estonian economic meltdown? Or perhaps 2009 Estonian catastrophic economic apocalypse would be a more neutral title? ;)Offliner (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard people assign miraculous powers to Ansip before, but I would not have expected you to believe in them. How about his capability to deliver water? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN for South Ossetian parliamentary election, 2009

On 2 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article South Ossetian parliamentary election, 2009, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia

I normally do not like to keep parrotting after someone else, but in this case I really don't have to add much to what Colchicum said—one cannot present both sides of an argument in a POV fork with a POV title. If you want to continue developing the article, there is nothing precluding you from moving it to your user space, balancing it to present both sides of the argument, and then moving it back to main space under a more appropriate title ("Human rights in Estonia" is certainly better than the current one). When I said "delete", what I really meant was "remove from mainspace", because in its current shape and form the article does not belong there. I do not object to the content of the article (it is well-referenced and certainly encyclopedic); I object to the way that content is spun and presented to the general audience. I hope this answers your question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:36, June 3, 2009 (UTC)

There are similarly named articles in Misplaced Pages, such as Russian influence operations in Estonia, Internet operations by Russian secret police, etc. Those are POV titles in a similar sense. Yet, they were not deleted or renamed, so I thought this is an accepted practice. Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia was taken to AfD a mere hour after it was created, without giving it enough time to develop. None of those who are complaining about the balance are helping to fix the issue, and they refuse to take part in the discussion on the talk page, so I really don't know what I'm supposed to do. If the right answer to POV is problems is not to discuss or fix the issue, but to delete the whole article, then there are a lot of articles that should be deleted. Offliner (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If any of those article are (re-)nominated for deletion and cross my path, I assure you I will vote "delete" for all the same reasons; but I have no interest in hunting them down and nominating them myself.

Regarding this article, my personal recommendation would be taking it to user space, balancing/expanding it there, giving it a neutral title, and submitting it for review before moving it to main space. Yes, it's a pain in the ass to jump through all those hoops, but what did you expect when you started a controversial topic like that? The attempt to work in this charged area is laudable, but you gotta be prepared to follow through.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:25, June 3, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I will work on the article in my userpage if it gets deleted, and try to fix the balance issue. Offliner (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

on minority rights

Come to my talkpage, lets undertake some sandbox efforts and make the structure of the article - that's the best way to show it has much information that does not fit other articles.

Occupation versus liberation

There was an article Allied occupation of Europe deleted not so long ago for obvious reasons. I have an idea of creating an article Liberation of Europe (which is currently a redirect to End of World War II in Europe) or Allied liberation of Europe. We could address all the issues with the claims of occupation of Europe by SU, as well as the Historical Truth Commission. What do you think about that? (Igny (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm not too interested WWII or pre-1991 history; I'm only interested in modern Russia (I think one has to set the limits somewhere.) But you could ask the editors involved at Occupation of Baltic states instead. Sorry that I'm not able to help. Offliner (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GRP stuff

I don't have a script for HTML table to wiki conversion, but for a table like this I found it easiest to just copy it to Excel and then run this excellent Excel-to-wiki conversion macro. You'll still need to do some follow-up cleanup, but all in all the script is nothing short of amazing.

The table itself, I think, could go to the economy of Russia article, unless you have a better place in mind. Regarding the infobox, technically, we could add a line with the GRP (the numbers are well-sourced and complete), but I am not sure if it isn't going to be too specialized. Perhaps we should run it by WP:RUSSIA to gather more opinions first? As you might have noticed, I am rather conservative when it comes to adding more parameters to infoboxes :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Respect

There are certain users I respect, no matter whether they agree with me or not. You are one of those I did respect. However, if you truely feel like this, than maybe that respect was misplaced. HistoricWarrior is a POV warrior of the worst kind, if you feel he is helping the article just because you share the POV he is aggressively pushing, you just lost a ton of my respect. Image how you would feel if people gave a barnstar to Kober for his great work to keep South Ossetia war 2008 free from POV. --Xeeron (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

HW is someone who raises concerns about POV issues on the talk page. Very often, his points are completely valid, such as the one he made about South and North Ossetia relations, or his concerns about the title "Russia-Georgia war." Without him it would be easier for the article to take a bad direction in regards to POV, because other editors would not notice certain problems. Of course, he should present his concerns with less ranting and be more to the point. To me, a "POV warrior" is someone who makes constant edit wars and tendentious edits that are in breach of WP:NPOV. But HW's edits are mostly on the talk page, and when he makes edits on the article, many people agree with him, so he is not acting against consensus (note that I have not followed the current edit war at all, so I don't know if he's right about that.) Note that I don't regard Kober as a POV warrior either. He is a useful editor to the article in the same way as HW (although I have to say that his launching of the new "vote" so quickly after the last one is pretty disruptive.) In contrast, User:Vanguard's recent edits were extremely disruptive and he could easily be labeled as "POV warrior" if he continues. Sadly, there are a lot of anti-Russian POV-pushers in Misplaced Pages, and people like HW (who belongs to a small minority) are very important in providing them a balance. (Luckily, the main team of those editors seems to have stayed out of the SOwar article in 2009.) In general, I think the article is now reasonably neutral (and reflects the current international opinion that Saakashvili started the war), and HW has played a no small part in accomplishing this. The next time we might have to make major changes regarding the articles POV balance is when the final results of the EU probe are made public this sommer. Offliner (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For me a POV warrior is an editor who:

• Consistently changes the article towards one POV and never towards the other
• Has a big majority of POV related edits with only a minor number of pure "copyedit" ones
• Makes edits that leave the article in a worse state (wikisyntax, etc) while introducing a POV change in the same edit (especially reverting edits that both changed POV and syntax/etc)
• Spend considerably more time argueing their POV on the talk page than editing the article
• Engage in POV related reverts

I guess everyone does one of the above occassionally, but the point about people like HistoricWarrior and Kober is that they do all of it all the time. It would be considerably easier to find a neutral consensus without those people around. --Xeeron (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd

Re : William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your backup on several Estonia/Russia related articles. I am now serving out a 6 month restriction on such articles and a 3 month block on BLP related to both countries.

I think certain users, especially Digwuren, are very good at gaming the system. Obviously, adopting the same tactics (as I did) is wrong but it does seem rather unfair that they have been able to get away with this behaviour for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Human rights in Estonia

On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Human rights in Estonia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Putin & Co.

Structure-wise, it's definitely an improvement over the previous version. Content-wise, I am not going to comment as I don't know this subject all that well.

Further improvements could include shortening section titles in the History section, formatting and weeding the references in the History section and below, and replacing or explaining the term "siloviki" in the lead, as most readers would have no idea what the word means (it should at the very least be linked to). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:37, June 17, 2009 (UTC)

Why do you even try

Here i mean. those articles badly fail WP:SYNTH. "Russian influence operations in Estonia" is a purely non-encyclopedic Misplaced Pages invention... there's no scholarly work on such subject (not even non-scholar, since google finds nothing but[REDACTED] mirrors when queried about the subject), so the facts in that article are just disparate instances picked to create a nice coatrack. the other one, "Internet operations by Russian secret police", while it may be, ignoring the conspiracist overtones introduced by "secret police", a valid scholar topic, as proved by some of the references, is a mess from an encyclopedic point of view. I am yet to see a source that considers online slander against Putin, nationalist-sensationalist treatment of polish article on a russian site and the contact webpage of the FSB as part of the same phenomenon (the part about cyberattacks and web brigades could be equally spurious, but at least they are treated in common by some of the sources that are generally deemed reliable on Misplaced Pages). You can only hope Russia's international image will improve and at the next AfD more people from the wide community will dare to intervene and analyse the two articles by[REDACTED] policies. Good luck! Anonimu (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you even try

Here i mean. those articles badly fail WP:SYNTH. "Russian influence operations in Estonia" is a purely non-encyclopedic Misplaced Pages invention... there's no scholarly work on such subject (not even non-scholar, since google finds nothing but[REDACTED] mirrors when queried about the subject), so the facts in that article are just disparate instances picked to create a nice coatrack. the other one, "Internet operations by Russian secret police", while it may be, ignoring the conspiracist overtones introduced by "secret police", a valid scholar topic, as proved by some of the references, is a mess from an encyclopedic point of view. I am yet to see a source that considers online slander against Putin, nationalist-sensationalist treatment of polish article on a russian site and the contact webpage of the FSB as part of the same phenomenon (the part about cyberattacks and web brigades could be equally spurious, but at least they are treated in common by some of the sources that are generally deemed reliable on Misplaced Pages). You can only hope Russia's international image will improve and at the next AfD more people from the wide community will dare to intervene and analyse the two articles by[REDACTED] policies. Good luck! Anonimu (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Report

I have filed a report about you at WP:AE. You are welcome to respond.Biophys (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can has a cheezkitty?

Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Poor evidence

Old diffs, or misleading series of edit warring diffs which in fact are spaced days appart. I'd strongly recommend you try to mend fences with Digwuren, you are all standing on thin ice there - few more mudballs and I'd expect to see several editors (from both sides) blocked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Old diffs like
  • 14 (which is from 10 June)?
• Spaced days apart like
  • 4 (four reverts in 24h) or
  • 6 (three reverts in 2 days)?
  • 5 (Timeline of antisemitism) (4 reverts in 2 days in 3 June - 5 June)?

Are those also "extremely poor" evidence of edit warring? Also, I never claimed that the diffs are from a single day. I was reporting persisntent edit warring over a long period of time. I also newer claimed that all of them are recent. So how can they be "misleading"? Offliner (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence has been presented by others on AE already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Offliner (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think evidence provided by both sides was relatively poor, but I guess other admins lost their patience. EOT, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Eastern Europe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The case

Two things to tell. First, I am not going to be very active in WP and placed a label at my talk page. Maybe I will edit something non-controversial from the Soviet history little by little. As about articles of our disagreement, keeping status quo would be fine. Second, if this case is taken, I do not want to be involved, unless I have to. If you and your friends, like PU and R, do not file anything about me, I am not going to submit any evidence about you and them to ArbCom. No response required. Whatever you and others decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt reply. I think it was clear: you asked Jehochman to reopen my AE case and commented there. Sorry, I thought we should start finding compromises, and perhaps we can?Biophys (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My weekend

These sorts of disruptions to my weekend are not looked upon as constructive. While we've had limited success, we've been able to discuss content with some civility. Lobbying that yet another arbitration is required complete with the usual litany of diffs is an unfortunate choice on your part. You will find you can engage in diffs and accusations or engage in article creation, but unless you're being paid to do this full time (mentioned only because I have run into more than one of those, no reflection upon yourself), you won't have time to do both. Consider how you wish to spend your Misplaced Pages time, the choice is yours--and it IS a choice. PetersV       TALK 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it has clearly been demonstrated in recent days that WP:AE does not work. For example, I cannot present any evidence without being immediately accused of block shopping by several editors who wish to shoot the messenger instead of focusing on the diffs itself. Reports with crystal clear evidence of edit warring are being dismissed with no action taken because of who is filing the report and because of the larger issue the evidence is part of, instead of based on the evidence itself. The idea of taking it to ArbCom is that they will be able to look at the whole issue and all the evidence in a centralized manner, and then make hard decisions, which is something the admins at WP:AE are unwilling to do.

Also, no one has accused you of anything yet. You were only included in the list because you have been involved in almost all the relevant discussions. I don't think you have been edit warring. But this request is not about you, it's about the wider issue and other editors who have provably been disruptive. In general, I think "shoot the messenger" is the key phrase of the recent days, as can be clearly seen from some of the responses at the arbitration request and here. Offliner (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My dear Offliner, the whole issue is you are spending too much time initiating actions against editors. It's somewhat disingenuous (my perspective, based on observing years of such actions) to protest you're not block shopping and only doing it for the good of Misplaced Pages when you point to your own failed evidence as evidence. The only action which is for the good of WP is the creation of reputable content. If there is truly egregious POV pushing, other editors will step in and put a stop to it based on enforcement mechanisms already in place. If you work on content without succumbing to the siren song of the revert, you will have a more postive experience and even be able to work together with the so-called opposition. If on the other hand you approach WP as trench warfare, you are responsible for the result, no one else. PetersV       TALK 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Contending that AE does not work because you didn't get the result you wanted is your synthesis. PetersV       TALK 15:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. It seems that some users are attacking everyone who dares to request that the behaviour of their friends be examined. Please calm down, let the ArbCom deal with the request in peace, and enjoy your weekend. Offliner (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, concentrate more on articles, less on reverts. Articles have a way of achieving equilibrium over time if given a chance. There is no rush. Vecrumba       TALK 04:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You said: The only action which is for the good of WP is the creation of reputable content. I think this is an oversimplification. Fixing bias and improving readability is just as important. Reverting more than once should be generally avoided. However, when there is a bad case of one editor trying to WP:OWN an article, or when tag teaming is used to prevent any improvements to POV, there sometimes is no other choice but to edit war. Before 2009, Biophys wrote a number of highly biased articles, basing them completely on questionable sources such as Litvinenko's books, which are nothing more than polemic rants financed by opposition oligarchs such as Berezovsky to spread anti-government propaganda. It was simply not possible to discuss with Biophys; he kept reverting whole articles back to his favourite version a dozen times, until he finally gave up and accepted some of the improvements. Digwuren and his friends were even worse. Fortunately, they mostly limited themselves to Baltic articles, where they tried (and succeeded) to push their anti-Russian POV. Things like Johan Bäckman and Russian influence operations in Estonia are still horribly biased. There's absolutely nothing I can do about Bäckman; every single one of my edits gets reverted immediately (even if it's just an uncontroversial structure or wording change, or the addition of a simple wikilink). Of course, the biasedness of the article is partly Bäckman's own fault; he doesn't give enough interviews to reputable media, so the only source about him is Estonian yellow press. About the announced "retirement" of Digwuren and Biophys: I'm extremely sceptical. I've seen Biophys retire at least a dozen times before; usually he gets back to editing within minutes of his announcement. The wording of Digwuren's message is also highly disturbing. He says that he has "discussed the matter with his colleagues" and also that he looks forward to "collaborating" with his friends in some other project. As for me, I guess editing on Baltic subjects is out of the question. Almost everyone who tries to fix the bias of those articles is now either banned (Krohn), restricted (me, PasswordUsername), or fed up and retired (Russavia). If I'm not completely topic banned from Eastern European subjects, I'd be happy to continue my (uncontroversial) edits on Russian economy or space program. Perhaps even political articles can be expanded without breaking 1RR, we'll see. Offliner (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome on my talk page. Feel free to discuss something beforehand if you like. BTW, you don't want to use Petri as an example, while truly an excellent contributor elsewhere, his raging blind spot regarding the Baltics and repeated unfortunate comments like "ethno-fascist POV pushers" and heaps of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are what got him banned. Only Petri was responsible for his being blocked for a year (first ban). Petri's current year-long ban is mainly a reflection of an extremely poor choice of expression given his past (and at times virulent) antagonism. And you're not aware of the many fine editors the so-called pro-Russian faction has driven away.

   Lastly, "fix bias" is the wrong premise—you may find "expand content" is a more constructive approach. Vecrumba       TALK 01:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that the bruhaha (sp?) is over, I should mention I have a great deal of respect for Sobell's expertise although I don't always agree. I give you points for using a reputable source to frame some of the topics of interest you'd like to address on WP. PētersV       TALK 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your AE edit

Please do not edit old evidence, or the discussion below it becomes impossible to follow. If you wish to add new evidence, please make a new discussion comment instead. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I will add it below instead. Offliner (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.Thatcher 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR limit

Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren I am placing you on a one revert per week limitation for all articles covered by that Arbitration case (Eastern Europe, broadly defined). You are prohibited from making more than one reversion per week per article, not including obvious vandalism. A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Violations will result in escalating blocks. You may request to have the 1RR limit reviewed or lifted after 6 months. This limit is imposed following evidence of prolonged edit warring, the Arbitration Enforcement complaint made here, and as a result of the recent disgraceful edit warring at at Nashi (youth movement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the inclusion of Category:Anti-fascist organizations. While no editor violated the 3RR rule (4 reverts in 24 hours) there were at least 23 reversion of the category between June 11 and June 21, without a single comment by anyone on the talk page. The list of editors and reversions makes a prima facia case for tag-team editing; whether it was organized or spontaneous is irrelevant, and it is not required that I prove anything one way or the other. It's time to edit cooperatively and use the talk pages to discuss disputes.

Thatcher 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vacated Thatcher 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No sooner said than...

Yep, : right as ever, Offliner! After less than 3 days, too. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably won't be long before Digwuren returns as well... Offliner (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:RfA concern

I don't think I incorrectly judged the consensus, since at that time, there were 15 supports (including my imminent one) for the move to 2008 Russian-Georgian War, and 6 opposes (counting HistoricWarrior007's "boycott" which indicated his opposition). And I remember giving a cursory glance at the previous discussion, and seeing more editors who would've supported the the proposed name, who hadn't voted in the previous discussion, than those who would've opposed the move , who hadn't voted in the last discussion. Overall, the balance shifted so it favoured the "2008 Russian-Georgian War" side. Thus, I don't think that I ignored previous opinions on the matter. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Although there were a few new supporters who had not voted before, there still was clearly no consensus. Many of the opposers from the previous discussion had not voted yet, and some were boycotting the vote because it was staged so soon after the previous one (there had already been many votes before as well in a short time.) Your judgement was clearly in error there. Offliner (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

At that moment in time, the supports outnumbered the oppose, and for determining consensus, the present is the most useful. Besides, the current name only won marginal consensus (by one vote) the last time around, and a shift into a slight consensus for the other option, is still a change in consensus. And just because an editor opposed last time does not mean that they would not necessarily !vote the same way this time. consensus can change, and editors who cannot accept this and boycott the discussion are inevitably left out of whatever consensus forms. Boycotting a discussion like that is immature, and borderline POINTy when trying to determine consensus. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 03:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop The Harassment

I merely added a link to an example implementation of Dijkstra's algorithm in C++ and Java which I think many coders might find useful. It is definitely not spam, I'm not selling Viagra, nor am I saying that you've won 1000000 dollars, all I did was just add a link in the "External Links" section. It is completely relevant to the article and a clean implementation I don't understand why you are so insist in undoing my edits and threatening to get me banned. Please stop, I don't want an editing war.

Frankrod44 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring

Your argument on behalf of the current page title is excellent, but I want to split it up into two different subsections since it is two different justifications for keeping the page at its current title. Would it be okay if I took the last paragraph of your comment and spun it off in its own section? I will make sure that your signature is placed in both sections. —harej (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Offliner (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)