Forget it. Done |
→Appalling personal attack: comment from them, then I am off to do my own thing |
||
(21 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
::Now starring at 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ingushetia_reported_by_User:Folantin_.28Result:_.29] for six reverts plus a phoney "page protected against vandalism" tag. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
::Now starring at 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ingushetia_reported_by_User:Folantin_.28Result:_.29] for six reverts plus a phoney "page protected against vandalism" tag. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Looks like he's been "indefinitely blocked for 48 hours" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ingushetia] (go figure). --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::Looks like he's been "indefinitely blocked for 48 hours" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ingushetia] (go figure). --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Appalling personal attack == |
|||
Russavia has made a rather appalling personal attack against a fellow editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Economist&diff=267841364&oldid=267829386] out of the blue. After checking the edit histories of both [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Digwuren Digwuren] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russavia Russavia] I don't see any obvious pattern of stalking, just a narrow range of articles where their interest happen to intersect. In any case there is no justification for this kind of attack. Could you advise Russavia of the requirement to AGF and be civil? [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Now Moreschi, I know that editors come to you for "assistance", and I do not believe that you are a totally neutral admin, as evidenced by what it appears a williness to ban what you regard as "Russian nationalist" editors, and by indifference when I come to you to help remind an editor that creating the "most grotesque" articles possible is not on (which by the way, you should know he is now enjoying his [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6/Muscovite99 umpteenth block on ruwiki after being found by their arbcom to be a consistently disruptive POV editor] which in turn makes him our problem, and as [[Putinism]] and [[Patriarch Alexy II of Russia]] shows he is a problem on en:wiki too). Now, I believe it was yourself who stated, although I would have to double check to be exact (perhaps it was one of these editors), that Harrassment is not on, and that if one feels like they are being harrassed, then they probably are, but I can only say that for some time now, I have had my edits systematically stalked in a harrassing way by Biophys (for quite some time), by Martintg (for some time), and by Digwuren (only recently), and I am currently gathering a shitload of evidence in this regard which will be taken to [[WP:AE]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&oldid=268415862#Can_you_provide_some_assistance_here_please I have asked another admin], with whom I am familiar with, and with whom I regard as totally neutral due to him not being afraid to say that I am being a [[WP:DICK]], and whilst I understand and totally respect his reasons for not wanting to get involved, this will only mean that I will be required to go to [[WP:AE]] and lay all this evidence out on the table and have it trashed out. If you want a list of articles on which these issues have arisen you can view [[User:Russavia/AE]], and if one wants to see the evidence, then I will take it to AE, because it is pretty damned convincing. (By the way, you will notice there is a message on the talk page of that link, which is evidence in itself of stalking). Now I really don't want to have to do this, and I want the entire amount of shit in this area of editing to be cut out, but when one has raised various issues in the past at a variety of fora, and they have been ignored or fobbed off with "so what" type of responses, then yes, one is going to be towards their end of their rope, particularly when editors either continue or begin to show a pattern of stalking of edits, and a range of other things, which when added together result in the type of things as above. I have asked these editors questions in the past in regards to these issues but either get no answer, or total misrepresentations. So you can warn me if you like, but I will would also remind you in the same breathe to remind said editors that stalking other editors edits around WP and making on absolutely feel like they are being harrassed, is also not on. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> 12:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:And if you'd like a prime example of this stalking this is something that is raised [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive32#User:Russavia|here]]. Just how does one find this? And just how does a bunch of editors find themselves on a user's talk page on which I left some observations, and which there is no evidence of them ever having edited which could result in it appearing on a watchlist (like I have found Martintg's complaint above). The same goes for [[The Economist]] article, and also the [[List of most common surnames]] of which there is no history of them having edited prior to mine; I don't stalk other people's edits, so I see no need why they should be doing it to myself, and blatantly doing it. And there are many others, many of which have resulted in what I can only describe as disruptive edits. I'm here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy or get involved in bullshit, and the sooner that people realise that, and back the hell off, the better off we'll all be. I've offered to collaborate on articles with quite a few editors in this area of editing, and I sincerely hope that an editor I have only today extended such an offer to will take me up on it, on what could be a featured article on here, and after some discussion on the article and rewording of information, he himself commented that my edits weren't was he was expecting (yes, they are basically NPOV), which doesn't mean that there isn't still disagreement, but this will be discussed and worked around, and yes we've had "disagreements" in the past. I don't want nor need the bullshit, I just want to be left to edit and collaborate in peace, with people with similar objectives to mine (not meaning the same POV), and I don't want to be stalked and harrassed. And yes, if I say that I feel like my edits are being stalked, and that I feel it is in a harrassing way, then it is probably a good bet that I have good reason for believing this is the case. I take responsibility for all of my edits on here, and I expect the same of others also. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Back when [[User:El C]]'s blatant abuse of power drove [[User:Sander Säde|Sander Säde]] off Wikipedia, he passed to [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] the tools he had developed to find new Estonia-related articles, so they can be tagged with {{tl|WikiProject Estonia}} as appropriate. I believe the toolkit made extensive usage of the "What links here" feature of MediaWiki. Did you, by any chance, [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Estonia|link to Estonia]] in your "eSStonia" article? [[User:Digwuren|Διγουρεν]]<sub>[[User talk:Digwuren|Εμπρος!]]</sub> 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Does this tool find articles in userspace? Which he found only a very short period of time after I posted it to userspace? I prefer to stick to the simplest answer for that. For this "tool" would not explain how he came to find, only a short period of time again after I added to, [[List of common surnames]], for the words "estonia" were already in the article, I only added the words "Ivanov", "Kuznetsov", etc, unless of course this tool is also set up to pick up Russian surnames? It also doesn't explain your own edit to [[The Economist]] article either. It also doesn't explain clear stalking of edits like [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_December_7#Image:RussiaOlegPantukhov.png]], in which the image was clearly inappropriately licenced, and at which Biophys had not edited before (so no reason to have on watchlist), and has voted to keep (even though clearly inclearly licenced) and then blatantly lied about it having being discussed previously. It also doesn't explain a range of reverts which Biophys performed almost immediately after I was blocked for 48 hours due to 3RR on Litvinenko article (in which he kept re-including BLP on Putin being a paedophile, and in which he also breached 3RR, but got jack for). A great example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NATO%E2%80%93Russia_relations&diff=257222681&oldid=257021548 the Russia-NATO relations article]. As one can see from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NATO%E2%80%93Russia_relations&action=history article history], he never edited that article previously, and one can also see that I have gone thru sources to verify the article, and edited it accordingly, and provided CLEAR edit summaries (as I always do!). And then he posts [[Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Restored]] claiming no reason for deletion, and when he gets pulled up on it by another editor he states "There are no my sources here. I will check this later." and "You suppose to debate the question first." (with a similar edit summary). '''WP IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY'''. His actions on that article prove multiple things: [[WP:STALK|stalking of my edits]], [[WP:AGF|zero assumption of good faith]], [[WP:V|violation of WP:V by re-including unsourced and statements which I verified as being unverified (if that makes sense)]], [[WP:OWN|assertion of ownership of the article by basically demanding that changes be debated with him]] (which in itself is a technical violation of [[WP:TEDIOUS]] [You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first] which in itself is a violation of allowing others to be [[WP:BOLD]] with his assertion of ownership), but of course the well-founded suspicions of mine have any basis in any fact, rhyme or reason. Needless to say, the reason I started to edit that article was because someone put up a "reward" (for a donation to WP if I remember correctly) if the article was improved to higher class by the end of the year--needless to say due to Biophys' text book definition of [[WP:HOUND]], I gave up trying to bring it up to a higher standard before I even started, due to that stalking and the crap that was pulled by Biophys. Perhaps Moreschi will totally disregard all of this, but I can guarantee you that if I were to present the even longer list of grievances another admin would clearly do something about it, because under the arbcom i.m. Digwuren, he would be banned in an instant. Because it is not in my head, and I am not making it up, it is there for all and sundry to see. Listen, Digwuren, I am an upfront, honest, direct, no-bullshit guy, and I will openly admit where I have screwed up (such as not AGF with Oth's edits, and apologised accordingly). I have no respect for bullshit but plenty of respect for those who are upfront and honest. It is much like the sockpuppet report on yourself, at which I have asked questions of Martin, only for them to go unanswered (again)...when the hell do people answer questions around this place? Or is it only myself who is game enough to do that? And if Martin wants to pursue this, then I will pursue that even further, because there was a shitload of incivility towards myself by Martin right there in the initial report, and the subsequent report. I have plenty of evidence in the works, which if/when presented will clearly show to a level-headed person that there has been a long-term campaign, co-ordinated or not, of stalking of my edits and overall harrassment, and due to absolutely bugger all being done about it (I am mostly to blame for that), it has caused me to say some things that one may not like, and which I do not like having to say. I would have more respect if people were upfront and say "Yes, I stalked you", which would make me inclined to let it drop completely and move on (I don't hold grudges), but the continued bullshit and excuses instead of being honest is leading to the exact type of comments that were said on that talk page, because yes it is pissing me off and proving to be a right pain in the arse, because it severely affecting my ability to be able to enjoy participation on this project, and that blows and I will no longer stand for it. I've got nothing more to say on the matter, at least not here anyway. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Attacking fellow editors is one thing. [[WP:Soap]] is another. He is placing propaganda pieces everywhere, as in [[The Economist]] article. Why this is a propaganda? Let's see first another example. He inserted the "one man disinformation bureau" quote in [[Litvinenko]] article - I tried to place it to a separate section, but he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Litvinenko&diff=268408524&oldid=268398243 reverted me]. First, the attribution was wrong: the statement was not according to "reports", but according to an article by one person. Moreover, the statement does not tell ''which exactly'' claim by Litvinenko was wrong and ''why''. It only tells: ''this man was a liar''. That is what distiguish ''propaganda''. And he does the same in other articles, like [[The Economist]]. He picks up a non-notable defamatory ''opinion'' about something or someone and places this in the article (instead of placing some factual data or justified criticism). No one dare to do anything with this user: he has been reported to WP:3RR for obvious 3RR violations (simultaneously in several articles!), and nothing happened.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Russavia has accused users many times more of stalking, also about you Martintg and you biophys (also happened on the page below). I too think this is unfair because Russavia is so extremely active that he pretty much edits every Russia related topic, and therefore that it's only natural he encounters the same users more often. |
|||
In light of that Moreschi I should point out this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Russavia_reported_by_User:Grey_Fox-9589_.28Result:_Article_is_protected.29] discussion. I had reported Russavia for 3rr, other users jumped in because apparently he had been edit warring multiple russia related articles all in a single day. He got away with a temporary warning, but it didn't help much. Now the result of the complaint is that the article is locked by Alex Bakharev. [[User:Grey Fox-9589|Grey Fox]] ([[User talk:Grey Fox-9589|talk]]) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Recently an admin not related to Russia related topics also voiced his conern that Russavia might have a conflict of interest. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&oldid=267911515]. Just pointing this out because other admins are also involved and thats important. A problem is that whenever you ask Russavia to stop something or accuse him of something he considers ''bad faith'' you'll get giant messages like above, bigger than any [[Tolkien]] book and a lot of [[WP:ALPHABETSOUP]]. [[User:Grey Fox-9589|Grey Fox]] ([[User talk:Grey Fox-9589|talk]]) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Russavia must know that his loooong reply (must be a record) can't divert attention from the original complaint that this: "''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Economist&diff=267841364&oldid=267829386 You are an Estonian editor who hates Russia and are here to help advocate your hate-filled POV on those subjects.....You are a nobody, and as a nobody people could care less what your opinions on anything....Digwuren if you don't like it, then don't let your ass hit the door on the way out, because your stalking, your removal of information without edit summaries is unacceptable, and I will continue to argue for their inclusion with editors who aren't harrassing me such as yourself]"'' is not only a totally unacceptable incivility, it is a total lie. Digwuren has never edited the [[The Economist]], [[Aleksei Mikheyev]], [[Alexander Litvinenko]] nor the many other articles Russavia has been involved in. The total [[irony]] is that Russavia, who created and doggedly defends the article [[ESStonia]], should accuse Digwuren of ''"advocating hate-filled POV"''. These kinds of unprovoked indiscriminate ethnic based personal attacks are really not on, and this should be explained to him in a way that will get through to him. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, I did insert into the Litvineko article that he was a "one man disinformation bureau". In fact what I wrote was: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
"A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau, who was at first guided by Berezovsky but later in pursuit of attention for himself. Henry Plater-Zyberk in the reports notes that Litvinenko made numerous accusations without presenting any evidence to give credence to his claims, and these claims which became increasingly outlandish, were often accepted by the British media without question.[3] He also noted that Litvinenko would bombard his contacts with emails relating to his theories,[3] and this was expanded upon by Julia Svetlichnaya, when she recalled meeting and talking with Litvinenko." |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
Who is Henry-Plater Zyberk? He is a senior lecturer at the Defence Academy of the UK (if ever there was an organisation which should join in the condemnation that is one, considering what it is, but it doesn't it takes an objective view, not only on this, but also other issues such as Chechnya, in which it actually criticises some government actions, and I have no problem in using it as a source on such articles, so long as it is not mispresented). The report is a scholarly report published by that institute, and he is an expert on Russian issues. The journal is edited/peer-viewed by Dr Andrew Monaghan, who [http://fpc.org.uk/staff/andrew.monaghan/ "holds an MA in War Studies from the Department of War Studies at King's College, London and wrote his PhD on Russia-EU relations" and is a "Global Fellow of the Foreign Policy Centre, and a visiting lecturer at the Defence Academy of Great Britain."] It's all verifiable [http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/07%2817%29AM.pdf here]. What people don't like is that it introduces a POV into the article that people don't want portrayed, and it is not written as a statement of fact, but as an opinion and analysis taken from a scholarly source (which are our preferred sources here on WP). It appears people just want an article in which Litvineko's accusations are presented as a matter of fact. And in fact, when introducing this into the section of the article, I even had presence of mind to add [[:Template:unbalanced-section]] to it, so that other POV could be added by myself and/or others, in order to balance out those views to reach actual NPOV in that particular section. And I have also fixed outright mispresentations in the article such as: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a picture of Litvinenko was used as a shooting target by the Russian special forces unit Vityaz in October 2002. The targets were also photographed by chance when the chairman of the Russian Duma's upper house Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met its head Sergei Lysiuk on 7 November 2006.[60][61] |
|||
Former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin stated he warned in 2002 that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate Litvinenko.[62] |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
was changed to: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002.[54] The centre run by Sergey Lyusyuk is not affiliated with the government, and trains bodyguards, debt collectors and private security forces,[55] although in November 2006 the centre was used by the Vityaz for a qualification examination due to their own centre being under renovation.[55] The targets, which Lyusyuk says were bought in the Olympic Market, were also photographed when the chairman of the Federation Council of Russia Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met Lyusyuk on 7 November 2006.[54][55] When asked why the photographs of Mironov's visit were removed from the centre's website Lyusyuk said that Mironov didn't see targets and knew nothing about them.[55] (I left out the quote where Lyusyuk said "Those Poles are up to something") |
|||
Former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin stated he warned in 2002 that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate Litvinenko.[56] In spite of this, Litvinenko often travelled overseas with no security arrangements, met with the Russian community in the United Kingdom, and often received journalists at his home.[4] |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
With the exception of "In spite of this...", how exactly did I come up with such prose? Simple, by using the existing sources which insinuated it was the Vityaz who made up and used the targets, and read them properly and adjusted them to say what the text says. Because what was there previously was outright propaganda, pure and simple, which wasn't even supported by the sources. And people are worried about me using a scholarly source? They should be worried if their intent for the article is to [[WP:NOT#MEMORIAL|memorialise]] the person and have his article used as an outlet with which to push his accusations and be used as promotional material for a book, which is unsuitably used as a reference in many places without counterinformation. |
|||
And Grey-Fox, yes Alex Bakharev did lock the article, and I agree with locking it, as Biophys is the one who '''demanded''' that we discuss all changes with him, which I regard as an unacceptable [[WP:OWN|assertion of ownership of the article]] and which negates the ability of editors to [[WP:BOLD|be bold in editing of articles]] (especially when presented as NPOV as my edits were). Although this is an unacceptable demand, we agreed to work on the article, starting with the introduction, in which we agreed to discuss the wording. You and I came up with text that we for most part agreed with, and based upon that we inserted it into the introduction. Along came Biophys and introduced contentious opinion into the lead of the article, without discussion and without consensus (going against his own demands). So yes, I reverted this edit, because it was not discussed and due to it being contentious opinion in the lead. (I also reverted Offliner's edit to the lead also if you remember). An editor can not expect other editors to abide by his demands and assertions of ownership over an article, and then him totally disregard his own demands. That is unacceptable, and I am sure if anyone tried pulling such crap on other articles, they would be swiftly rebuked as well. Added into other things, this also goes into [[WP:HOUND]], whereby I am made to feel that I am unable to edit on articles because of severe ownership issues. Now I have extended an offer for yourself and others to work on the article in my namespace, and that offer stands, because we are a collaborative effort. |
|||
Now if anyone has been insulted by words I have said, then I do sincerely apologise, and I expect that the stalking and hounding of my edits will also cease by other parties, because as much as Martintg's complaint is valid, so are my complaints which I have raised here, and which also have not received a response on. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:30, 5 February 2009
I'm currently handing out rollback randomly to people who I think might find it useful - if you don't want the tool, just leave a note here and I'll remove you from the rollbacker user rights group again.
If you want a Veropedia account, just ask. Along with your request, please supply your email address (you can email this to me if you don't want to disclose it publicly), and before you ask, make sure you're not a troll (most people aren't, so you should be fine), and that you can string a coherent sentence together (most people can do this as well). Great article writers are very, very welcome but you don't have to be one, as a lot of the work is copyediting wikignome-style.
Thoughts on User:Moreschi/The Plague and subpages (1 and 2)? All comments welcome.
Admin philosophy is here, general thoughts are here. Work currently in progress: User:Moreschi/Workspace 1.
Recently archived
Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Moreschi I was looking for an admin who was a bit used to Armenia-Azerbaidjan issues, and I saw your intervention on WP:AE. I'm not a regular contributor on wk:en (I'm on wk:fr, where I'm an admin), but due to some pov-pushing on wk:en invading other wks, I have been involved in discussions about Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Could you have a look at the history of this article ? An ip can't stop reinserting an OR (see talk), pretending this is consensus on talk (which is not). Best regards, Sardur (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems that some anon has been POV-warring by repeatedly replacing the well-known Turkish name of the mosque with an obscure (and allegedly Azeri) name spelt using the modern Azerbaijani alphabet. Meowy 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Namsos
With regard to your block of Dacy, do you see any good faith editing coming from Namsos (talk · contribs)? Please check his contribs, nothing but persistent edit warring, and this is his latest rv after the long absence, without any edit summary: [1] Grandmaster 07:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- His latest rv? I hope Moreschi will check the words that Namsos removed ("a region of Caucasian Albania, which") and check the cited source in which they were claimed to be from. No such words exist anywhere in the source! The source is invalid anyway - much of it is derived from Wikipedia articles - note the map - and probably vandalised ones. "In the 20th century, the indigenous population became a minority as Armenians migrated into the province" we are told in that source. An astonishing statement, considering the truth is the exact opposite! Meowy 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which source? There was no reference to any source in the intro, as the article explains further down that the region was also a part of Albania. The intro is just the summary of the article's text. In any case, Namsos appears to be a sock account, I'm just not sure at the moment who operates it. He is just a revert machine. Grandmaster 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The revert of Namsos is supported by at least one other user (me) who thinks that the edit of Gradnmaster was a POV (see the relevant talk). Namsos indeed left a question mark as edit summary which IMO is enough when you remove a rare POV. --Vacio (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Namsos very conveniently appears after the long absence just to rv, and a question mark cannot be considered a useful edit summary. It is enough to check the contribs of this user to note a certain behavioral pattern. I just wonder, if the reason for Dacy's indef block was his revert on Nakhichevan khanate, then what about Namsos, who makes no useful contribs, and his only contribution is reverting controversial articles? Grandmaster 06:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, as far as I can remember Namsos has reverted Artsakh only 1 time, you Grandmaster did it numerious times. --Vacio (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I did not. But this is not just about reverting. Dacy also reverted only once, but was blocked indef. This is about the general editing pattern by Namsos, who does nothing but edit war. I think the block of Dacy was too harsh a measure, and if users are blocked on such basis, then users like Namsos are much worse offenders. Btw, he is not the only one. Grandmaster 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Btw, socking by Namsos has been confirmed by CU some time ago: [2] According to the admin filing the request Namsos was involved in a tag team edit war. Looks like it is Hetoum I (talk · contribs). Even if not him, some established or banned user seems to be behind that account. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, as far as I can remember Namsos has reverted Artsakh only 1 time, you Grandmaster did it numerious times. --Vacio (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Namsos very conveniently appears after the long absence just to rv, and a question mark cannot be considered a useful edit summary. It is enough to check the contribs of this user to note a certain behavioral pattern. I just wonder, if the reason for Dacy's indef block was his revert on Nakhichevan khanate, then what about Namsos, who makes no useful contribs, and his only contribution is reverting controversial articles? Grandmaster 06:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The revert of Namsos is supported by at least one other user (me) who thinks that the edit of Gradnmaster was a POV (see the relevant talk). Namsos indeed left a question mark as edit summary which IMO is enough when you remove a rare POV. --Vacio (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which source? There was no reference to any source in the intro, as the article explains further down that the region was also a part of Albania. The intro is just the summary of the article's text. In any case, Namsos appears to be a sock account, I'm just not sure at the moment who operates it. He is just a revert machine. Grandmaster 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Tutankhamun
Greetings. I noticed your comment at Talk: Tutankhamun, so, presumably, you've read my entry. Your diatribes about what you presume to be "Afrocentric" POV-pushing aside, I'm wondering what you think of it and -- errors aside -- the forensic archaeological evidence I've presented in support of an indigenous, Black Tutankhamun.
Seriously, Moreschi, when you have a moment, I'd be interested to know. deeceevoice (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the evidence on Tut of Deeceevoice is quite interesting, and I would like to propose that an article be created specifically to air this evidence (and also for others such as Cleopatra etc) separate from the mainstream "scholarly consensus" article. 41.245.58.47 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Check this out...
...if you want more evidence of our self-selected "RfA community" "in action" [3]. LOL Even Esperanza was more relevant to Wikipedia than this. --Folantin (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Chaldean Catholic Page
Hello Moreschi, recently there have been many members who have been 'contributing' to the page, they have been putting their own POV in the page. I came to you because it seems that you were involved at one point. I am asking you to get involved (if you want) to protect the page as of now, and help the sides seek a resolution. Malik Danno (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
An image
How do you think, is this image a "fair game"? It tells about a living president Saakashvili: "he will meet the same death". I am not quite sure if mainspace is a proper place for that.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that the image is found on Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia War, nowhere else, as it is mentioned within the article as one of the most notable aspects of the hackings that occurred during the war. It's a fair use image used to illustrate that article, nothing more. --Russavia Dialogue 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Re PW
Sincere thanks! No blame attached to anyone; it's a niche topic - a historical curiosity even - and as it wasn't affecting many editors, it's understandable the dispute slipped though the net. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, although after the ANI thread I should have probably kept tabs on this guy. Still, it's all over now. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite... I wasn't aware a block left editors free to continue to make disparaging comments about others via their Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: WP:ANI has intervened with a warning to stop soapboxing Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Troll
Moreschi, this is pretty strong language, and I am not agreeing with your assessment.[4] Could you please consider ratcheting back the rhetoric? --Elonka 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Tundrabuggy is currently number 2 on my list of people who should be banned, but aren't. A more harmful partisan in the I/P articles it is hard to think of. I have never seen him take one reasonable position, be open to any form of compromise, do anything other than flame and stoke tension on talkpages, and, well, yes, be a troll. Even Jaak and PR on their worst days weren't as bad as this guy. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
RFAR follow-up
Not sure if you are still following the RFAR on posturewriter, so letting you know here. Would you have time to respond to this? Several points there, but the one about leaving block notices on talk pages is one that I think should be done, especially as posturewriter has said they only edit at weekends (roughly) and they might confuse your block with the earlier one from WMC. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving the note on the user's page. On the philosophical point of the difference between an indefinite block from an admin, and a year-long block and topic ban from the Arbitration Committee following a case (you covered that here by saying that you are not limited in that way), it's my view that disruption in a limited area is best met by blocking in that area only (not technically possible yet, or rather not implemented yet). If you had been able to just block posturewriter from that article, would you have done that instead of a sitewide block? I was serious when I said that people who get hung up on individual things may behave better away from that particular topic. Obviously, most people just keep coming back to such pages, and if they do so, then a block is obviously needed. But I think it is worth it for the cases where someone can learn and develop away from their 'blind spot'. You might call it too much of a "second chance", but to me it is a chance in a different area. They have had and used all their chances in this area already. Additionally, some people think that blocks generate socks, while topic bans reduce the chance of socking. If you really wanted posturewriter to never edit any article badly ever again, you needed to keep them visible, not drive them underground. Obviously activity at the article in question will be spotted, but what about the same type of incorrect use of sources and original research and synthesis elsewhere? How will you spot that? Essentially, infinite blocks are a quick-and-dirty way to handle things, but sometimes a more nuanced approach will help control things and avoid run-on damage elsewhere. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Haven't followed this until now, don't know enough background, but given the indef block, should this page be deleted, or at least blanked? Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, as Moreschi has done, though blanking would also have been fine. The text itself is, of course, still available in the history of the main article, into which it was cut and pasted several times and revert warred over. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Baku87
He recently created two maps File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg and File:Azeri lost lands.jpg and inserted them into two articles. I removed both when I noticed it and today he re-added one of them rv vandalism by Eupator. I also noticed another imaginary map that he craetd and inserted: File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg The maps that he created are displaying territories claimed by the ADR and DRA as part of ADR (Karabakh), territories which were in total and recognized control of DRA (like Nakhichevan and Zangezur) as part of ADR etc. This is highly disruptive and provocative. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reference for actual state of the region at the time: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Royal Rife
Hello Moreschi. I wanted to let you know that I have lifted in indefinite semi-protection of Talk:Royal Rife. I understand the has been talk page abuse, I find nothing particularly problematic in the last few weeks, and since the article itself is protected, there is now no mechanism for the IP who wishes to discuss the article to do so. Instead, I'll supervise the talk page discussion to ensure it remains on topic and germane to improving the article. Rockpocket 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thank you
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What you're dealing with
User:Wapondaponda is am obvious sock of User:Muntuwandi. I would have reported him a long time ago but I gave up trying to keep track of his socks. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those red linked editors at Ancient Egyptian race controversy and the other page you AfDed aren't socks as well. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep an eye on the Ingushetia article?
...where User:Ingushetia (sic) keeps re-adding dubious information with a strong anti-Ossetian flavour [5]. This is all about the Ossetian-Ingush conflict of the early 1990s (turf war between two Russian Federation republics over the Prigorodny district). The user is trying to depict the Ossetians as an historically evil people. The worst is the insinuation (via synthesis) that the reason why Stalin deported the entire Ingush people in the 1940s is because he was of "Ossetian nationality" (a speculative assertion in itself). Compare: "Trotsky, a Jew, was responsible for the Kronstadt Massacre." He's had this explained to him on the talk page at considerable length by at least three other editors (including me), but he seems unwilling or unable to comply with policy. (Also, other shenanigans about the etymology of the Alans and their Medieval capital in the North Caucasus, Maghas. AFAIK Most scholars think the modern Ossetians are the descendants of the Alans. Our guy is trying to make out these are Ingush names. Presumably, idea of Ossetians dominating Ingush in the Middle Ages is unacceptable.) PS: I also posted this to Dab. --Folantin (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- He's added all of it back again. I think this is his fourth revert today. I've given him the opportunity to revert his last edit [6]. If he doesn't take it, well then... --Folantin (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Appalling personal attack
Russavia has made a rather appalling personal attack against a fellow editor [9] out of the blue. After checking the edit histories of both Digwuren and Russavia I don't see any obvious pattern of stalking, just a narrow range of articles where their interest happen to intersect. In any case there is no justification for this kind of attack. Could you advise Russavia of the requirement to AGF and be civil? Martintg (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Now Moreschi, I know that editors come to you for "assistance", and I do not believe that you are a totally neutral admin, as evidenced by what it appears a williness to ban what you regard as "Russian nationalist" editors, and by indifference when I come to you to help remind an editor that creating the "most grotesque" articles possible is not on (which by the way, you should know he is now enjoying his umpteenth block on ruwiki after being found by their arbcom to be a consistently disruptive POV editor which in turn makes him our problem, and as Putinism and Patriarch Alexy II of Russia shows he is a problem on en:wiki too). Now, I believe it was yourself who stated, although I would have to double check to be exact (perhaps it was one of these editors), that Harrassment is not on, and that if one feels like they are being harrassed, then they probably are, but I can only say that for some time now, I have had my edits systematically stalked in a harrassing way by Biophys (for quite some time), by Martintg (for some time), and by Digwuren (only recently), and I am currently gathering a shitload of evidence in this regard which will be taken to WP:AE. I have asked another admin, with whom I am familiar with, and with whom I regard as totally neutral due to him not being afraid to say that I am being a WP:DICK, and whilst I understand and totally respect his reasons for not wanting to get involved, this will only mean that I will be required to go to WP:AE and lay all this evidence out on the table and have it trashed out. If you want a list of articles on which these issues have arisen you can view User:Russavia/AE, and if one wants to see the evidence, then I will take it to AE, because it is pretty damned convincing. (By the way, you will notice there is a message on the talk page of that link, which is evidence in itself of stalking). Now I really don't want to have to do this, and I want the entire amount of shit in this area of editing to be cut out, but when one has raised various issues in the past at a variety of fora, and they have been ignored or fobbed off with "so what" type of responses, then yes, one is going to be towards their end of their rope, particularly when editors either continue or begin to show a pattern of stalking of edits, and a range of other things, which when added together result in the type of things as above. I have asked these editors questions in the past in regards to these issues but either get no answer, or total misrepresentations. So you can warn me if you like, but I will would also remind you in the same breathe to remind said editors that stalking other editors edits around WP and making on absolutely feel like they are being harrassed, is also not on. --Russavia Dialogue 12:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- And if you'd like a prime example of this stalking this is something that is raised here. Just how does one find this? And just how does a bunch of editors find themselves on a user's talk page on which I left some observations, and which there is no evidence of them ever having edited which could result in it appearing on a watchlist (like I have found Martintg's complaint above). The same goes for The Economist article, and also the List of most common surnames of which there is no history of them having edited prior to mine; I don't stalk other people's edits, so I see no need why they should be doing it to myself, and blatantly doing it. And there are many others, many of which have resulted in what I can only describe as disruptive edits. I'm here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy or get involved in bullshit, and the sooner that people realise that, and back the hell off, the better off we'll all be. I've offered to collaborate on articles with quite a few editors in this area of editing, and I sincerely hope that an editor I have only today extended such an offer to will take me up on it, on what could be a featured article on here, and after some discussion on the article and rewording of information, he himself commented that my edits weren't was he was expecting (yes, they are basically NPOV), which doesn't mean that there isn't still disagreement, but this will be discussed and worked around, and yes we've had "disagreements" in the past. I don't want nor need the bullshit, I just want to be left to edit and collaborate in peace, with people with similar objectives to mine (not meaning the same POV), and I don't want to be stalked and harrassed. And yes, if I say that I feel like my edits are being stalked, and that I feel it is in a harrassing way, then it is probably a good bet that I have good reason for believing this is the case. I take responsibility for all of my edits on here, and I expect the same of others also. --Russavia Dialogue 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Back when User:El C's blatant abuse of power drove Sander Säde off Wikipedia, he passed to Martintg the tools he had developed to find new Estonia-related articles, so they can be tagged with {{WikiProject Estonia}} as appropriate. I believe the toolkit made extensive usage of the "What links here" feature of MediaWiki. Did you, by any chance, link to Estonia in your "eSStonia" article? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Does this tool find articles in userspace? Which he found only a very short period of time after I posted it to userspace? I prefer to stick to the simplest answer for that. For this "tool" would not explain how he came to find, only a short period of time again after I added to, List of common surnames, for the words "estonia" were already in the article, I only added the words "Ivanov", "Kuznetsov", etc, unless of course this tool is also set up to pick up Russian surnames? It also doesn't explain your own edit to The Economist article either. It also doesn't explain clear stalking of edits like Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_December_7#Image:RussiaOlegPantukhov.png, in which the image was clearly inappropriately licenced, and at which Biophys had not edited before (so no reason to have on watchlist), and has voted to keep (even though clearly inclearly licenced) and then blatantly lied about it having being discussed previously. It also doesn't explain a range of reverts which Biophys performed almost immediately after I was blocked for 48 hours due to 3RR on Litvinenko article (in which he kept re-including BLP on Putin being a paedophile, and in which he also breached 3RR, but got jack for). A great example is the Russia-NATO relations article. As one can see from the article history, he never edited that article previously, and one can also see that I have gone thru sources to verify the article, and edited it accordingly, and provided CLEAR edit summaries (as I always do!). And then he posts Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Restored claiming no reason for deletion, and when he gets pulled up on it by another editor he states "There are no my sources here. I will check this later." and "You suppose to debate the question first." (with a similar edit summary). WP IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY. His actions on that article prove multiple things: stalking of my edits, zero assumption of good faith, violation of WP:V by re-including unsourced and statements which I verified as being unverified (if that makes sense), assertion of ownership of the article by basically demanding that changes be debated with him (which in itself is a technical violation of WP:TEDIOUS [You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first] which in itself is a violation of allowing others to be WP:BOLD with his assertion of ownership), but of course the well-founded suspicions of mine have any basis in any fact, rhyme or reason. Needless to say, the reason I started to edit that article was because someone put up a "reward" (for a donation to WP if I remember correctly) if the article was improved to higher class by the end of the year--needless to say due to Biophys' text book definition of WP:HOUND, I gave up trying to bring it up to a higher standard before I even started, due to that stalking and the crap that was pulled by Biophys. Perhaps Moreschi will totally disregard all of this, but I can guarantee you that if I were to present the even longer list of grievances another admin would clearly do something about it, because under the arbcom i.m. Digwuren, he would be banned in an instant. Because it is not in my head, and I am not making it up, it is there for all and sundry to see. Listen, Digwuren, I am an upfront, honest, direct, no-bullshit guy, and I will openly admit where I have screwed up (such as not AGF with Oth's edits, and apologised accordingly). I have no respect for bullshit but plenty of respect for those who are upfront and honest. It is much like the sockpuppet report on yourself, at which I have asked questions of Martin, only for them to go unanswered (again)...when the hell do people answer questions around this place? Or is it only myself who is game enough to do that? And if Martin wants to pursue this, then I will pursue that even further, because there was a shitload of incivility towards myself by Martin right there in the initial report, and the subsequent report. I have plenty of evidence in the works, which if/when presented will clearly show to a level-headed person that there has been a long-term campaign, co-ordinated or not, of stalking of my edits and overall harrassment, and due to absolutely bugger all being done about it (I am mostly to blame for that), it has caused me to say some things that one may not like, and which I do not like having to say. I would have more respect if people were upfront and say "Yes, I stalked you", which would make me inclined to let it drop completely and move on (I don't hold grudges), but the continued bullshit and excuses instead of being honest is leading to the exact type of comments that were said on that talk page, because yes it is pissing me off and proving to be a right pain in the arse, because it severely affecting my ability to be able to enjoy participation on this project, and that blows and I will no longer stand for it. I've got nothing more to say on the matter, at least not here anyway. --Russavia Dialogue 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Back when User:El C's blatant abuse of power drove Sander Säde off Wikipedia, he passed to Martintg the tools he had developed to find new Estonia-related articles, so they can be tagged with {{WikiProject Estonia}} as appropriate. I believe the toolkit made extensive usage of the "What links here" feature of MediaWiki. Did you, by any chance, link to Estonia in your "eSStonia" article? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Attacking fellow editors is one thing. WP:Soap is another. He is placing propaganda pieces everywhere, as in The Economist article. Why this is a propaganda? Let's see first another example. He inserted the "one man disinformation bureau" quote in Litvinenko article - I tried to place it to a separate section, but he reverted me. First, the attribution was wrong: the statement was not according to "reports", but according to an article by one person. Moreover, the statement does not tell which exactly claim by Litvinenko was wrong and why. It only tells: this man was a liar. That is what distiguish propaganda. And he does the same in other articles, like The Economist. He picks up a non-notable defamatory opinion about something or someone and places this in the article (instead of placing some factual data or justified criticism). No one dare to do anything with this user: he has been reported to WP:3RR for obvious 3RR violations (simultaneously in several articles!), and nothing happened.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Russavia has accused users many times more of stalking, also about you Martintg and you biophys (also happened on the page below). I too think this is unfair because Russavia is so extremely active that he pretty much edits every Russia related topic, and therefore that it's only natural he encounters the same users more often. In light of that Moreschi I should point out this [10] discussion. I had reported Russavia for 3rr, other users jumped in because apparently he had been edit warring multiple russia related articles all in a single day. He got away with a temporary warning, but it didn't help much. Now the result of the complaint is that the article is locked by Alex Bakharev. Grey Fox (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Recently an admin not related to Russia related topics also voiced his conern that Russavia might have a conflict of interest. [11]. Just pointing this out because other admins are also involved and thats important. A problem is that whenever you ask Russavia to stop something or accuse him of something he considers bad faith you'll get giant messages like above, bigger than any Tolkien book and a lot of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Grey Fox (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Russavia must know that his loooong reply (must be a record) can't divert attention from the original complaint that this: "You are an Estonian editor who hates Russia and are here to help advocate your hate-filled POV on those subjects.....You are a nobody, and as a nobody people could care less what your opinions on anything....Digwuren if you don't like it, then don't let your ass hit the door on the way out, because your stalking, your removal of information without edit summaries is unacceptable, and I will continue to argue for their inclusion with editors who aren't harrassing me such as yourself" is not only a totally unacceptable incivility, it is a total lie. Digwuren has never edited the The Economist, Aleksei Mikheyev, Alexander Litvinenko nor the many other articles Russavia has been involved in. The total irony is that Russavia, who created and doggedly defends the article ESStonia, should accuse Digwuren of "advocating hate-filled POV". These kinds of unprovoked indiscriminate ethnic based personal attacks are really not on, and this should be explained to him in a way that will get through to him. Martintg (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did insert into the Litvineko article that he was a "one man disinformation bureau". In fact what I wrote was:
"A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau, who was at first guided by Berezovsky but later in pursuit of attention for himself. Henry Plater-Zyberk in the reports notes that Litvinenko made numerous accusations without presenting any evidence to give credence to his claims, and these claims which became increasingly outlandish, were often accepted by the British media without question.[3] He also noted that Litvinenko would bombard his contacts with emails relating to his theories,[3] and this was expanded upon by Julia Svetlichnaya, when she recalled meeting and talking with Litvinenko."
Who is Henry-Plater Zyberk? He is a senior lecturer at the Defence Academy of the UK (if ever there was an organisation which should join in the condemnation that is one, considering what it is, but it doesn't it takes an objective view, not only on this, but also other issues such as Chechnya, in which it actually criticises some government actions, and I have no problem in using it as a source on such articles, so long as it is not mispresented). The report is a scholarly report published by that institute, and he is an expert on Russian issues. The journal is edited/peer-viewed by Dr Andrew Monaghan, who "holds an MA in War Studies from the Department of War Studies at King's College, London and wrote his PhD on Russia-EU relations" and is a "Global Fellow of the Foreign Policy Centre, and a visiting lecturer at the Defence Academy of Great Britain." It's all verifiable here. What people don't like is that it introduces a POV into the article that people don't want portrayed, and it is not written as a statement of fact, but as an opinion and analysis taken from a scholarly source (which are our preferred sources here on WP). It appears people just want an article in which Litvineko's accusations are presented as a matter of fact. And in fact, when introducing this into the section of the article, I even had presence of mind to add Template:unbalanced-section to it, so that other POV could be added by myself and/or others, in order to balance out those views to reach actual NPOV in that particular section. And I have also fixed outright mispresentations in the article such as:
In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a picture of Litvinenko was used as a shooting target by the Russian special forces unit Vityaz in October 2002. The targets were also photographed by chance when the chairman of the Russian Duma's upper house Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met its head Sergei Lysiuk on 7 November 2006.[60][61]
Former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin stated he warned in 2002 that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate Litvinenko.[62]
was changed to:
In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002.[54] The centre run by Sergey Lyusyuk is not affiliated with the government, and trains bodyguards, debt collectors and private security forces,[55] although in November 2006 the centre was used by the Vityaz for a qualification examination due to their own centre being under renovation.[55] The targets, which Lyusyuk says were bought in the Olympic Market, were also photographed when the chairman of the Federation Council of Russia Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met Lyusyuk on 7 November 2006.[54][55] When asked why the photographs of Mironov's visit were removed from the centre's website Lyusyuk said that Mironov didn't see targets and knew nothing about them.[55] (I left out the quote where Lyusyuk said "Those Poles are up to something")
Former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin stated he warned in 2002 that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate Litvinenko.[56] In spite of this, Litvinenko often travelled overseas with no security arrangements, met with the Russian community in the United Kingdom, and often received journalists at his home.[4]
With the exception of "In spite of this...", how exactly did I come up with such prose? Simple, by using the existing sources which insinuated it was the Vityaz who made up and used the targets, and read them properly and adjusted them to say what the text says. Because what was there previously was outright propaganda, pure and simple, which wasn't even supported by the sources. And people are worried about me using a scholarly source? They should be worried if their intent for the article is to memorialise the person and have his article used as an outlet with which to push his accusations and be used as promotional material for a book, which is unsuitably used as a reference in many places without counterinformation.
And Grey-Fox, yes Alex Bakharev did lock the article, and I agree with locking it, as Biophys is the one who demanded that we discuss all changes with him, which I regard as an unacceptable assertion of ownership of the article and which negates the ability of editors to be bold in editing of articles (especially when presented as NPOV as my edits were). Although this is an unacceptable demand, we agreed to work on the article, starting with the introduction, in which we agreed to discuss the wording. You and I came up with text that we for most part agreed with, and based upon that we inserted it into the introduction. Along came Biophys and introduced contentious opinion into the lead of the article, without discussion and without consensus (going against his own demands). So yes, I reverted this edit, because it was not discussed and due to it being contentious opinion in the lead. (I also reverted Offliner's edit to the lead also if you remember). An editor can not expect other editors to abide by his demands and assertions of ownership over an article, and then him totally disregard his own demands. That is unacceptable, and I am sure if anyone tried pulling such crap on other articles, they would be swiftly rebuked as well. Added into other things, this also goes into WP:HOUND, whereby I am made to feel that I am unable to edit on articles because of severe ownership issues. Now I have extended an offer for yourself and others to work on the article in my namespace, and that offer stands, because we are a collaborative effort.
Now if anyone has been insulted by words I have said, then I do sincerely apologise, and I expect that the stalking and hounding of my edits will also cease by other parties, because as much as Martintg's complaint is valid, so are my complaints which I have raised here, and which also have not received a response on. --Russavia Dialogue 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)