User talk:Hiberniantears: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:00, 11 June 2009 editNeslgrad09 (talk \| contribs)100 edits →Hola ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:00, 11 June 2009 edit undoVecrumba (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →And more of the same traveling circus: Done here (positive I hope!), and done here (not so positive)Next edit →
Line 686:		Line 686:
	:: I would note that all Viriditas had to do was to talk to me on my talk page which he has not done. My identity is not a secret. I use my real name, unlike "Viriditas", so ''exactly who is it that is hiding their identity from whom by not using their real name and why''? See how easy it is to call an editor's integrity into question? How easily we label editors as <u>enemies</u> and then act in a manner <u>'''which can only fulfill our expectations'''</u>. If someone attacks me, ah, yes, I should be kind to them for by doing so it will be like heaping burning coals upon their heads. If only this were a ''Biblical'' and not ''encyclopedic'' struggle. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)		:: I would note that all Viriditas had to do was to talk to me on my talk page which he has not done. My identity is not a secret. I use my real name, unlike "Viriditas", so ''exactly who is it that is hiding their identity from whom by not using their real name and why''? See how easy it is to call an editor's integrity into question? How easily we label editors as <u>enemies</u> and then act in a manner <u>'''which can only fulfill our expectations'''</u>. If someone attacks me, ah, yes, I should be kind to them for by doing so it will be like heaping burning coals upon their heads. If only this were a ''Biblical'' and not ''encyclopedic'' struggle. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::You completely misunderstood me. I never questioned your ''identity''. I questioned why you weren't using your actual user name. ] (]) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)		:::You completely misunderstood me. I never questioned your ''identity''. I questioned why you weren't using your actual user name. ] (]) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
			:::: Prior I was signing my full name for a very long time, which I then simply shortened to PētersV. I was, quite frankly, amazed that anyone would take exception, as I see it done all the time, and it's not like it's stil not <u>'''my name'''</u>, just abbreviated. I'm quite content to chalk your side of this unfortunate confrontation to some poor assumptions based on circumstances which you erroneously took to indicate bad faith. Time to move on, yes? ...
			:...(''od'') Moving on to PasswordUsername. I've requested on your talk page you cease and desist lodging accusations against me behind my back on admin and user (talk) pages, the latest at . I trust my request is clear and unambiguous. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Just as a heads-up ==		== Just as a heads-up ==

Revision as of 02:00, 11 June 2009

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5.

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Need help

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi! Can I ask for help? This is related to the article Occupation of Baltic states. This is an old dispute. In short, the article reflects only one point of view on the status of Baltic republics in the period of 1945-1991. The Baltic states insist they were occupied by the USSR, while Russia considers the republics were part of the USSR an the time. Some sources according their political agenda and country of origin, state the republics were incorporated into the USSR, and some - that they were occupied. But the article reflects only the point of view of the Baltic republics. I've tried to neutralize the article and add refernces, but any my edits were reverted. The article had been under meditation , but the Estonian activists not only did not follow the ruling, but even personally attacked the mediator. So I had given up. But today I see on the main page of the Misplaced Pages the statement that the republics were occupied all over from 1945 to 1991 which contradicts the very definition of occupation in Hague Conventions of 1907. I think that the fact Misplaced Pages is taking sides in such hard political disputes makes harm to Misplaced Pages and undermines its authority.--Dojarca (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I will take a look, but it may take me a few days to get fully informed on the topic. It definitely seems as those the scope of the article is too open ended. Regardless of legal status, I don't think treating the Baltic states as just Soviet occupied during the Cold War paints an accurate view. I certainly consider them to have been part of the Soviet Union. That Soviet control was contested is important, but I'm not certain regarding the entire period merely as an occupation is the most appropriate NPOV. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you. When I tryed to add references and quotes of the different points of view into Occupation of Baltic states, user Digwuren (who later was banned from Misplaced Pages for a year) crated a new article Soviet Occupation denialism and moved all the stuff there to get rid of any opposing points of view in the main article. This article abuot "denialism" has been twice deleted after dicussion: , . The main article is purged of any alternative points of view. I hoped the article will become more neutral over time, but it seem nobody aside Baltic activists is interested in it (or simply quickly pushed out of the article like me).--Dojarca (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I've read your suggstion here ] and I think it's a great idea. What about something like "Soviet occupation theory in the post-Soviet states"? This may include not only the Baltics, but also Ukraine where President Yushchenko created so-called "Museum of Soviet occupation" in Kiev, apparently to create basement for theory that Ukraine was occupied from 1918, and also Georgia, where President Saakashvili also created a museum of Soviet occupation (note that former Estonian president Lennart Meri sergves as an advisor to Saakashvili). They did not move as far as the Baltic states this way though. I think the article can cover the phenomenon completely rather than by parts.--Dojarca (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Excellent point. I think an "occupation theory" may be one component of the larger subject. Some countries had greater claims to sovereignty than others, and in most cases the claims pre-date the Soviet Union since the lands in question were part of the Russian Empire. I think we'll have to look for legitimate, long standing independence movements and treat those individually from contemporary politics that seek to retroactively present the appearance of a unified national spirit of anti-Soviet resistance solely for the purpose of shoring up domestic political support by creating the appearance of a dispute with modern Russia. The Ukrainian example is one example of the purely political assertion of Occupation. The Baltics are a different case, wherein their are more legitimate claims to sovereignty, even though calling the entire period of time an occupation seems to be a stretch. The Baltic situation may have more in common with the Balkan states that originally spun out of Yugoslavia in the early 1990's; integral parts of a legitimate state that angrily parted ways. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I think the theory of occupation in the Baltic states does not only serve the purpose to present the state under external threat to gain political support. The theory of occupation is the base of their statehood. You know, around 1992 those countries decreed that they now on to be considered successors of the states that ceased to exist in 1940 rather than the Soviet Baltic republics. With this decree they stripped of citizenship and any civil rights all people whose predecessors did not live in the republics before 1940, including those who were born in those states. According the Brezhnev's 1977 constitution all citizens of the USSR had double citizenship: of the USSR and of the respective republics. And now from 30% to 40% of the population of those states were stripped of their citizenship and any civil rights, rights to elect, they were banned from numerous occupations such as firefighters, policemen, medics, chemists and so on. Their status bacame very close to the status of Jews in Germany in the mid-1930s. Special non-citizen("alien") passports were issued for those people. This mass of population of "second grade", still exists in those republics. So if the "theory of occupation" would refuted, they all should gain right to vote and the political landscape would change dramatically and many nationalist politicians would not be re-elected.--Dojarca (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I see what you're saying... Let me think on this a bit, as I want to come up with a proposed page move that will be least controversially NPOV. I think that regardless of what we come up with, it will get the ire of nationalist editors on either side of the issue, but there seems to be a pretty clear NPOV middle ground to work with here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Probably this may be more neutral, what about something like "Baltic republics status controvercy in 1940-1991"?--Dojarca (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Something along those lines will work... just need to make it roll of the tongue a bit better. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi! Can I ask for help? This is related to the article Occupation of Baltic states. This is an old dispute. In short, the article reflects only one point of view on the status of Baltic republics in the period of 1945-1991. The Baltic states insist they were occupied by the USSR, while Russia considers the republics were part of the USSR an the time. Some sources according their political agenda and country of origin, state the republics were incorporated into the USSR, and some - that they were occupied. But the article reflects only the point of view of the Baltic republics. I've tried to neutralize the article and add refernces, but any my edits were reverted. The article had been under meditation , but the Estonian activists not only did not follow the ruling, but even personally attacked the mediator. So I had given up. But today I see on the main page of the Misplaced Pages the statement that the republics were occupied all over from 1945 to 1991 which contradicts the very definition of occupation in Hague Conventions of 1907. I think that the fact Misplaced Pages is taking sides in such hard political disputes makes harm to Misplaced Pages and undermines its authority.--Dojarca (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look, but it may take me a few days to get fully informed on the topic. It definitely seems as those the scope of the article is too open ended. Regardless of legal status, I don't think treating the Baltic states as just Soviet occupied during the Cold War paints an accurate view. I certainly consider them to have been part of the Soviet Union. That Soviet control was contested is important, but I'm not certain regarding the entire period merely as an occupation is the most appropriate NPOV. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. When I tryed to add references and quotes of the different points of view into Occupation of Baltic states, user Digwuren (who later was banned from Misplaced Pages for a year) crated a new article Soviet Occupation denialism and moved all the stuff there to get rid of any opposing points of view in the main article. This article abuot "denialism" has been twice deleted after dicussion: , . The main article is purged of any alternative points of view. I hoped the article will become more neutral over time, but it seem nobody aside Baltic activists is interested in it (or simply quickly pushed out of the article like me).--Dojarca (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read your suggstion here ] and I think it's a great idea. What about something like "Soviet occupation theory in the post-Soviet states"? This may include not only the Baltics, but also Ukraine where President Yushchenko created so-called "Museum of Soviet occupation" in Kiev, apparently to create basement for theory that Ukraine was occupied from 1918, and also Georgia, where President Saakashvili also created a museum of Soviet occupation (note that former Estonian president Lennart Meri sergves as an advisor to Saakashvili). They did not move as far as the Baltic states this way though. I think the article can cover the phenomenon completely rather than by parts.--Dojarca (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think an "occupation theory" may be one component of the larger subject. Some countries had greater claims to sovereignty than others, and in most cases the claims pre-date the Soviet Union since the lands in question were part of the Russian Empire. I think we'll have to look for legitimate, long standing independence movements and treat those individually from contemporary politics that seek to retroactively present the appearance of a unified national spirit of anti-Soviet resistance solely for the purpose of shoring up domestic political support by creating the appearance of a dispute with modern Russia. The Ukrainian example is one example of the purely political assertion of Occupation. The Baltics are a different case, wherein their are more legitimate claims to sovereignty, even though calling the entire period of time an occupation seems to be a stretch. The Baltic situation may have more in common with the Balkan states that originally spun out of Yugoslavia in the early 1990's; integral parts of a legitimate state that angrily parted ways. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the theory of occupation in the Baltic states does not only serve the purpose to present the state under external threat to gain political support. The theory of occupation is the base of their statehood. You know, around 1992 those countries decreed that they now on to be considered successors of the states that ceased to exist in 1940 rather than the Soviet Baltic republics. With this decree they stripped of citizenship and any civil rights all people whose predecessors did not live in the republics before 1940, including those who were born in those states. According the Brezhnev's 1977 constitution all citizens of the USSR had double citizenship: of the USSR and of the respective republics. And now from 30% to 40% of the population of those states were stripped of their citizenship and any civil rights, rights to elect, they were banned from numerous occupations such as firefighters, policemen, medics, chemists and so on. Their status bacame very close to the status of Jews in Germany in the mid-1930s. Special non-citizen("alien") passports were issued for those people. This mass of population of "second grade", still exists in those republics. So if the "theory of occupation" would refuted, they all should gain right to vote and the political landscape would change dramatically and many nationalist politicians would not be re-elected.--Dojarca (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying... Let me think on this a bit, as I want to come up with a proposed page move that will be least controversially NPOV. I think that regardless of what we come up with, it will get the ire of nationalist editors on either side of the issue, but there seems to be a pretty clear NPOV middle ground to work with here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably this may be more neutral, what about something like "Baltic republics status controvercy in 1940-1991"?--Dojarca (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Something along those lines will work... just need to make it roll of the tongue a bit better. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

Please block User:Ammera from editing the talk page? Lots of incivility and personal attacks going on. Momo san 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, already done by Tan39. Momo san 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... I probably should have seen that one coming. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Baltic states

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Responded to yours on mine. Best regards, PetersV TALK 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC) As you appear to be a thoughtful editor, it will save time and space if you read my interview here. It's from some time back, but little has changed since. It deals with a number of topics, including Latvia's relationship with Russia. Unlike the bulk of editors who all combat under their WP:MONIKERS safe from being identified, I have nothing to hide. PetersV TALK 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC) And I assume you have read my user page regarding POVs--except for removing the mention of editors, it's a verbatim copy from one of an endless stream of "it's equally valid POVs" and "it's a content dispute" arbitrations. And I do have to congratulate Dojarca on his change in tactics to preemptively rope in neutral but receptive editors rather than himself being the source of the first volley of this latest repetition of the past. PetersV TALK 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Regarding the occupied/not occupied debate here in Misplaced Pages, the interesting thing is that there is no debate to be found in the scholarly literature. Contrast this to the Holodomor and you will find a significant debate within the literature about whether is was man-made or natural and whether it could be considered genocide or not. Russia's position is political, borne out of the desire to avoid any liability for compensation as the legal successor to the USSR, and as a political lever. But there is no scholarship to be found that supports Russia's position. Martintg (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) PLEASE, please, and I can't emphasize this enough, PLEASE read and acknowledge that I agree with the position that there was an occupation. Good grief guys! Hiberniantears (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC) No worries, Dojarca pops out of the wood work every six months or so to challenge this particular article, sorry you got roped into it. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I also do not say that there was no occupation at all, please do not put words in my mouth. I siad it many times. I only say that after the republics were accepted into the USSR, the occupation (if existed), came to the end.--Dojarca (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) This view you hold is OR, there is no serious independent source to be found that supports this view. Sure, this is the political view of the Russian government (they have yet to release any kind of analysis to support this view), but how much weight do we attach to it? Iran denies the Holocaust, should we now give equal weight to their viewpoint and claim the Holocaust is the unbalanced work of Jew POV pushers? I think most certainly not. Martintg (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Do you disagree that a country cannot occupy its own territory? Or do you disagree that the Baltics belonged to the USSR? If the former, I think you hold a very fringe view. If the letter then yes, there are numerous sources which agree wiuth you and also there are numerous sources that disagree with you.--Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (od) I'm a bit perplexed by your request for sources--as clarified by another editor, "owned" should be substituted for with "controlled", in which case the points make more sense. All this has been dredged through before, including the opposition quoting eminent authorities in the field of international law that exigencies often force events in the direction of the international community's de jure recognition of illegal acts--all WP:OR that has been laid to rest. I echo Martintg's sentiments. (And it would take days to read through all the prior arbitrations and the egregious name-calling--not by the Baltic editors--which they contain.) Best regards, PetersV TALK 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC) There is a lot of sources which say the USSR constituted of those lands, not only controlled them. I already gave some of them in the article's talk page.--Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Responded to yours on mine. Best regards, PetersV TALK 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As you appear to be a thoughtful editor, it will save time and space if you read my interview here. It's from some time back, but little has changed since. It deals with a number of topics, including Latvia's relationship with Russia. Unlike the bulk of editors who all combat under their WP:MONIKERS safe from being identified, I have nothing to hide. PetersV TALK 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And I assume you have read my user page regarding POVs--except for removing the mention of editors, it's a verbatim copy from one of an endless stream of "it's equally valid POVs" and "it's a content dispute" arbitrations. And I do have to congratulate Dojarca on his change in tactics to preemptively rope in neutral but receptive editors rather than himself being the source of the first volley of this latest repetition of the past. PetersV TALK 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the occupied/not occupied debate here in Misplaced Pages, the interesting thing is that there is no debate to be found in the scholarly literature. Contrast this to the Holodomor and you will find a significant debate within the literature about whether is was man-made or natural and whether it could be considered genocide or not. Russia's position is political, borne out of the desire to avoid any liability for compensation as the legal successor to the USSR, and as a political lever. But there is no scholarship to be found that supports Russia's position. Martintg (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, please, and I can't emphasize this enough, PLEASE read and acknowledge that I agree with the position that there was an occupation. Good grief guys! Hiberniantears (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Dojarca pops out of the wood work every six months or so to challenge this particular article, sorry you got roped into it. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also do not say that there was no occupation at all, please do not put words in my mouth. I siad it many times. I only say that after the republics were accepted into the USSR, the occupation (if existed), came to the end.--Dojarca (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This view you hold is OR, there is no serious independent source to be found that supports this view. Sure, this is the political view of the Russian government (they have yet to release any kind of analysis to support this view), but how much weight do we attach to it? Iran denies the Holocaust, should we now give equal weight to their viewpoint and claim the Holocaust is the unbalanced work of Jew POV pushers? I think most certainly not. Martintg (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree that a country cannot occupy its own territory? Or do you disagree that the Baltics belonged to the USSR? If the former, I think you hold a very fringe view. If the letter then yes, there are numerous sources which agree wiuth you and also there are numerous sources that disagree with you.--Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm a bit perplexed by your request for sources--as clarified by another editor, "owned" should be substituted for with "controlled", in which case the points make more sense.
All this has been dredged through before, including the opposition quoting eminent authorities in the field of international law that exigencies often force events in the direction of the international community's de jure recognition of illegal acts--all WP:OR that has been laid to rest. I echo Martintg's sentiments. (And it would take days to read through all the prior arbitrations and the egregious name-calling--not by the Baltic editors--which they contain.) Best regards, PetersV TALK 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of sources which say the USSR constituted of those lands, not only controlled them. I already gave some of them in the article's talk page.--Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this edit. It is one of the boldest, if not the best I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. I did however try to improve on your wording here. The occupation point-of-view asserts that the Baltic Soviet republics never existed, and that the states were under military occupation until 1991. It is a separate issue from the real life military activity of 1940 and 1944. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Petri's assertion is misleading. You are a new comer to all this, you may want to review this. Is was so peaceful through 2008 till now, now your involvement is re-opening an ugly can of worms. Martintg (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I had no knowledge that this discussion existed. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and greetings!

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We hope you'll spend your first night here in a pleasant, relaxing manner. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you to not rehash horses which were dead two fucking years ago, and not troll userpages of people with anti-troll policy. Thank you for your coöperation. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Hiberniantears, templating a regular is not considered really appropriate, while edit warring someone's user talk page is consider disruptive. I'm surprised you would engage in such a thing. Martintg (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm actually warning him that I'm about to block him. Let me be crystal clear about that. You're now in line as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC) The line between sincere warnings and abusive threats is not a fine line. A newbie stumbling with his first warning might be forgiven under the policies of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but you, being an administrator, have no such defence. You've templated me now how many times tonight? Four? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Two templates, one revert, and one hand crafted final warning, which I advise you to heed. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I have not violated any policies, which means that warnings are inapplicable. Are you threatening to block me for disagreeing with you over the article with dead horses? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I am disengaging with you in light of the Medcom case I just filed (see the section below). I was threatening to block you for a variety of issues, none of which concern your differences with me at the article in question save the removal of an NPOV template. Since blocking you would reduce the effectiveness of the Medcom case, I rescind my warnings for the time being. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) And be advised you are on an extremely short leash: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren Block log Hiberniantears (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We hope you'll spend your first night here in a pleasant, relaxing manner. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you to not rehash horses which were dead two fucking years ago, and not troll userpages of people with anti-troll policy. Thank you for your coöperation. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, templating a regular is not considered really appropriate, while edit warring someone's user talk page is consider disruptive. I'm surprised you would engage in such a thing. Martintg (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm actually warning him that I'm about to block him. Let me be crystal clear about that. You're now in line as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The line between sincere warnings and abusive threats is not a fine line. A newbie stumbling with his first warning might be forgiven under the policies of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but you, being an administrator, have no such defence. You've templated me now how many times tonight? Four? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Two templates, one revert, and one hand crafted final warning, which I advise you to heed. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated any policies, which means that warnings are inapplicable. Are you threatening to block me for disagreeing with you over the article with dead horses? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am disengaging with you in light of the Medcom case I just filed (see the section below). I was threatening to block you for a variety of issues, none of which concern your differences with me at the article in question save the removal of an NPOV template. Since blocking you would reduce the effectiveness of the Medcom case, I rescind my warnings for the time being. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And be advised you are on an extremely short leash:

Hiberniantears (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states

Please take any further discussions of the topic to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hiberniantears. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Baltics required reading

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In noticing Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states, and seeing a few of the players involved, I would suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda as this will give you some insight into the opinions of those editors - you'll notice that the community at large (because it included opinions from outside of this area of editing) saw the template for what it was; then look at the usernames of those who voted to keep the attack on other editors, and you will notice that they are the same editors who are involved in Occupation of the Baltic states. You may also like to take note that an article that I am working on in my userspace had an uninvited editor making changes, which one can see here. Where: The controversial decision for this recognition saw Australia breaking ranks with the Western countries and joining the majority of countries in recognition. was changed to: The controversial unilateral decision by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam acting as minister of foreign affairs, announced in Moscow, saw Australia temporarily break ranks with the Western countries in granting recognition. Whilst unilateral decision is incorrect (as I didn't realise Australia needs permission to engage in its own foreign policy), and whilst Whitlam wasn't acting as MFA at the time of recognition, and whilst it wasn't announced in Moscow but in Canberra (that's pieces of WP:OR in one sentence), you will note that the section fragment "joining the majority of countries in recognition." was removed completely. And that fragment is a documented fact - the majority of countries did recognise the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, and didn't regard it as an occupation. Another fact, some 30% of the world's literature is in the Russian language, and hence there is bound to be a heap of writing on this issue, and it can be incorporated into the article, without the permission from the other editors. What certain editors are trying to do is to force the US/EU opinion as being the majority opinion, when that is NOT the case. The key is what is mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles. That being: Neutral point of view as defined on Misplaced Pages contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. But it seems that these editors are pursuing the same behaviour as they were in the articles relating to that Arbcom, i.e. disallowing other POV to be presented within articles. In relation to that Arbcom, given the similarity between the articles in the Arbcom, and the article above, it may be worth seeking clarification at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification whether Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions which are in place on the Latvian article would by nature also extend to the current article? You may also like to take note of this Arbcom - in particular Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions - it is related to this area of editing (Eastern Europe broadly defined), and the Arbcom has stated: Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. Similar behaviour can be seen at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Neo-Stalinism_in_21st_century, except that template is worse as it has been used to commit BLP violations, which one can see if one looks at the edit history. If one looks at the overall picture, instead of simply one single article, one can see this is simply a continuation of treating WP as a battleground, which editors have been warned against at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, in which numerous editors are clearly going against both the letter and the spirit of numerous core policies and possibly numerous Arbcom decisions. I'll leave that with you to look at, or ignore, but just wanted to raise attention to those things. --Russavia 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Somehow none of the above surprises me. I thought you might be interested in seeing that there are a number of books relating to the Baltics in English as well. This is just the first page of five regarding the general subject of the Baltics at one of the libraries in town here, and it looks like at four of them deal explicitly with the Baltics and the Soviet Union. Right now I'm still in the process of trying to find out just how bloody many portals relating to Christianity there are, but I think that I should have the opportunity to review the volumes in question in the next few days. I hope, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC) LOL... Ahh, what did I get myself into? :-) Thanks for the link, I'm taking a look now. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC) As for required reading, I suggest you first read Hyphen War — and then multiply it by about ten million, to get some grasp of the severity of the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Dear Russavia, if you have an issue with my edits don't troll user talk pages. Whitlam's "unilateral" changes in Australia's recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics means that: in the role of acting foreign minister, he made that decision solely by himself he enacted that decision by himself that decision was in no way approved or ratified by any parliamentary action and was absent of any other review or approval. Don't misinterpret edits and deride them off article. There's no WP:OR, that's all sourcable, including first mention of recognition in Moscow. I tire of your underhanded tactics. You have an issue with my edit? Contact me via WP or in real person, I've got nothing to hide. PetersV TALK 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Russavia's polemic is representative of the out of context cherry picking exhibited by several editors from the get go. Why Hiberniantears and John Carter both choose to accept the word of Dorjarca, Russavia or Petri Krohn at face value, while taking a skeptical view of what Vecrumba, myself or Digwuren may say is one of the great mysteries. Shrug. Perhaps either John or Hiberniantears could send me a private email to explain it to me. Martintg (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I'd point out that this contextomy is wilful, not careless. Careless out of context quoting may happen through mistakes in editing, or reading only a single source where there are multiple sources available. Wilful context erasure happens when an editor deliberately picks the sources he likes, discards the rests, and then pretends the rest do not exist. It's often combined with the tactic of red herring. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In noticing Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states, and seeing a few of the players involved, I would suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda as this will give you some insight into the opinions of those editors - you'll notice that the community at large (because it included opinions from outside of this area of editing) saw the template for what it was; then look at the usernames of those who voted to keep the attack on other editors, and you will notice that they are the same editors who are involved in Occupation of the Baltic states.

You may also like to take note that an article that I am working on in my userspace had an uninvited editor making changes, which one can see here. Where:

The controversial decision for this recognition saw Australia breaking ranks with the Western countries and joining the majority of countries in recognition.

was changed to:

The controversial unilateral decision by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam acting as minister of foreign affairs, announced in Moscow, saw Australia temporarily break ranks with the Western countries in granting recognition.

Whilst unilateral decision is incorrect (as I didn't realise Australia needs permission to engage in its own foreign policy), and whilst Whitlam wasn't acting as MFA at the time of recognition, and whilst it wasn't announced in Moscow but in Canberra (that's pieces of WP:OR in one sentence), you will note that the section fragment "joining the majority of countries in recognition." was removed completely. And that fragment is a documented fact - the majority of countries did recognise the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR, and didn't regard it as an occupation.

Another fact, some 30% of the world's literature is in the Russian language, and hence there is bound to be a heap of writing on this issue, and it can be incorporated into the article, without the permission from the other editors. What certain editors are trying to do is to force the US/EU opinion as being the majority opinion, when that is NOT the case.

The key is what is mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles. That being:

Neutral point of view as defined on Misplaced Pages contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

But it seems that these editors are pursuing the same behaviour as they were in the articles relating to that Arbcom, i.e. disallowing other POV to be presented within articles. In relation to that Arbcom, given the similarity between the articles in the Arbcom, and the article above, it may be worth seeking clarification at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification whether Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions which are in place on the Latvian article would by nature also extend to the current article? You may also like to take note of this Arbcom - in particular Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions - it is related to this area of editing (Eastern Europe broadly defined), and the Arbcom has stated:

Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Similar behaviour can be seen at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Neo-Stalinism_in_21st_century, except that template is worse as it has been used to commit BLP violations, which one can see if one looks at the edit history.

If one looks at the overall picture, instead of simply one single article, one can see this is simply a continuation of treating WP as a battleground, which editors have been warned against at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, in which numerous editors are clearly going against both the letter and the spirit of numerous core policies and possibly numerous Arbcom decisions.

I'll leave that with you to look at, or ignore, but just wanted to raise attention to those things. --Russavia 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow none of the above surprises me. I thought you might be interested in seeing that there are a number of books relating to the Baltics in English as well. This is just the first page of five regarding the general subject of the Baltics at one of the libraries in town here, and it looks like at four of them deal explicitly with the Baltics and the Soviet Union. Right now I'm still in the process of trying to find out just how bloody many portals relating to Christianity there are, but I think that I should have the opportunity to review the volumes in question in the next few days. I hope, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL... Ahh, what did I get myself into? :-) Thanks for the link, I'm taking a look now. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As for required reading, I suggest you first read Hyphen War — and then multiply it by about ten million, to get some grasp of the severity of the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Russavia, if you have an issue with my edits don't troll user talk pages. Whitlam's "unilateral" changes in Australia's recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics means that:

in the role of acting foreign minister, he made that decision solely by himself
he enacted that decision by himself
that decision was in no way approved or ratified by any parliamentary action and was absent of any other review or approval.

Don't misinterpret edits and deride them off article. There's no WP:OR, that's all sourcable, including first mention of recognition in Moscow. I tire of your underhanded tactics. You have an issue with my edit? Contact me via WP or in real person, I've got nothing to hide. PetersV TALK 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Russavia's polemic is representative of the out of context cherry picking exhibited by several editors from the get go. Why Hiberniantears and John Carter both choose to accept the word of Dorjarca, Russavia or Petri Krohn at face value, while taking a skeptical view of what Vecrumba, myself or Digwuren may say is one of the great mysteries. Shrug. Perhaps either John or Hiberniantears could send me a private email to explain it to me. Martintg (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that this contextomy is wilful, not careless. Careless out of context quoting may happen through mistakes in editing, or reading only a single source where there are multiple sources available. Wilful context erasure happens when an editor deliberately picks the sources he likes, discards the rests, and then pretends the rest do not exist. It's often combined with the tactic of red herring. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Real world required reading on the Baltics

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I didn't think that Misplaced Pages was a reliable source. Here are some real world reliable sources from outside Wikpedia that is required reading: The the European Court of Human Rights The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944-1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941-1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991. mark The Forty-Third Session of the UN Sub-Commission at Google Scholar The Soviet Union itself has condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and itself that led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries. of a nationalist U.S.-Baltic Relations: Celebrating 85 Years of Friendship at U.S Department of State From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation, the United States acted with a consistency and a tenacity of which we can all be proud. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands. frenzy of editors Country Profiles: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania at UK Foreign Office In 1940-41 it was occupied by the Soviet Union under the provisions of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, by Nazi Germany from 1941-1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944-91. under the Soviet occupation thousands of Latvians were deported to Siberian camps, executed or forced into exile. The UK and most other western countries never recognised de jure the Baltic States' incorporation into the USSR. is EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION 1.5.2007 whereas the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised as legal by the Western democracies; 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror, at the European Parliament impossible On June 12, 1940 the order for a total military blockade on Estonia to the Soviet Baltic Fleet was given: according to the director of the Russian State Archive of the Naval Department Pavel Petrov (C.Phil.) referring to the records in the archive Template:Fi icon Pavel Petrov at Finnish Defence Forces home page to follow page Template:Ru icon documents published from the State Archive of the Russian Navy</ref> non-linear On June 15 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Lithuania. On June 16 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Estonia, Latvia Five Years of Dates at Time magazine on Monday, Jun. 24, 1940 threads The Virtual Jewish History Tour Estonia The peaceful and active life of the small Jewish community in Estonia came to an abrupt halt in 1940 with the Soviet occupation of Estonia at jewishvirtuallibrary.org and hyperposting The Holocaust in the Baltics There were, at the time of Soviet occupation in 1940, approximately 2000 Estonian Jews. Approximately 5000 Latvian Jews were deported to Siberia during the one year of Soviet occupation. Because of the second occupation of Soviet forces in 1944, many of the issues regarding the Holocaust were never addressed in the Baltics. at University of Washington from The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States Irina Saburova, Russian Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 36-49 An examination of the history of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal. all sides Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States and Their Incorporation into the USSR: Political and Legal Aspects Alex Shtromas, East European Quarterly, 19, September 1985, 289-304, Not available online. An examination of political and legal aspects of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal. in Latvia: The Soviet occupation and incorporation Encyclopedia Britannica, . Discusses Soviet occupation and annexation of Latvia. a manner scholarly sources, before and after 1991. that is Taagepera, Rein (1986). Citizens' Peace Movement in the Soviet Baltic Republics. Journal of Peace Research 23 (2), 183-192. Soon after, US President Ronald Reagan used a reception for Baltic Americans to comment on Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, stressing that the United States does not legally recognize the Soviet annexation of these states. (p. 189) so con Stevenson, John R. (1965) Case Notes. The American Journal of International Law 59 (3), 642-653. On motions of the Consuls General of the Governments in exile of Latvia and Estonia (joined in by the Attorney General of the State of New York), the court stated that the Government of the United States had never recognized the forceful occupation of Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union or the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. (p. 643) fusing Saburova, Irina (1955) The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States. Russian Review 14.1, 36-49. that few thir Prazmowska, Anita J. (1992). Review of Between Churchill and Stalin: The Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the Origins of the Grand Alliance by Steven Merritt Miner. The English Historical Review 107.424, 769-770. In particular he sees British willingness to condone the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as a gesture which did little to improve Britain's negotiating position, but which encouraged Soviet expansionism. (p. 769) d Lillich, Richard B. (1972). The Anglo-Soviet Claims Agreement of 1968. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 21 (1), 1-14. parties Clearly, Great Britain's de facto recognition of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States carried with it no acceptance of the Soviet Union's claim that the Baltic nationalisation law had extraterritorial effects. could ever be bothered Lewis B. E. (1977). Soviet Taboo. Review of Vtoraya Mirovaya Voina, History of the Second World War by B. Liddel Gart (Russian translation). Soviet Studies 29 (4), 603-606. Stalin's occupation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia (p. 143) and his designs on Romania and Bulgaria in 1940-41 (p. 145) are similarly deleted, along with quoted private opinion from the German side suggesting Russian willingness to join the Axis in order to extend its influence in this latter region. (p. 604) to make hea Page, Stanley W. (1960). Review of Soviet Policy toward the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1918-1940 by Albert N. Tarulis. The Journal of Modern History 32 (4), 411-412. The final two-fifths of the book recounts the story of Soviet occupation* of the Baltic States in terms of human experience and is by far the most arresting section. (p. 411)* d Time Magazine, Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia. --Martintg (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) s Some more sources for your reading pleasure, enjoy: Bruce Parrott, State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia, entire chapter on the subject: Reversing Soviet Military Occupation or tails of it, le :::t alone bring John Ashley Soames Grenville, Bernard Wasserstein, The major international treaties of the twentieth century p.886 : "...A related issue was the continuing Russian military occupation and bases. The Baltic states demanded the withdrawal of all the ex-Soviet troops, numbering at least 100,000". --Martintg (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)any kind of logical resolution to what amounts to little more than a nationalist battleground of such inanity it is hard to express WiTh only words. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I didn't think that Misplaced Pages was a reliable source. Here are some real world reliable sources from outside Wikpedia that is required reading: The

the European Court of Human Rights The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944-1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941-1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991.

mark

The Forty-Third Session of the UN Sub-Commission at Google Scholar The Soviet Union itself has condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and itself that led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries.

of a nationalist

U.S.-Baltic Relations: Celebrating 85 Years of Friendship at U.S Department of State From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation, the United States acted with a consistency and a tenacity of which we can all be proud. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands.

frenzy of editors

Country Profiles: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania at UK Foreign Office In 1940-41 it was occupied by the Soviet Union under the provisions of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, by Nazi Germany from 1941-1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944-91. under the Soviet occupation thousands of Latvians were deported to Siberian camps, executed or forced into exile. The UK and most other western countries never recognised de jure the Baltic States' incorporation into the USSR.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION 1.5.2007 whereas the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised as legal by the Western democracies; 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror, at the European Parliament

impossible

On June 12, 1940 the order for a total military blockade on Estonia to the Soviet Baltic Fleet was given: according to the director of the Russian State Archive of the Naval Department Pavel Petrov (C.Phil.) referring to the records in the archive Template:Fi icon Pavel Petrov at Finnish Defence Forces home page to follow page Template:Ru icon documents published from the State Archive of the Russian Navy</ref>

non-linear

On June 15 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Lithuania. On June 16 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Estonia, Latvia Five Years of Dates at Time magazine on Monday, Jun. 24, 1940

threads

The Virtual Jewish History Tour Estonia The peaceful and active life of the small Jewish community in Estonia came to an abrupt halt in 1940 with the Soviet occupation of Estonia at jewishvirtuallibrary.org

and hyperposting

The Holocaust in the Baltics There were, at the time of Soviet occupation in 1940, approximately 2000 Estonian Jews. Approximately 5000 Latvian Jews were deported to Siberia during the one year of Soviet occupation. Because of the second occupation of Soviet forces in 1944, many of the issues regarding the Holocaust were never addressed in the Baltics. at University of Washington

from

The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States Irina Saburova, Russian Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 36-49 An examination of the history of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal.

all sides

Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States and Their Incorporation into the USSR: Political and Legal Aspects Alex Shtromas, East European Quarterly, 19, September 1985, 289-304, Not available online. An examination of political and legal aspects of the Soviet Occupation in a peer reviewed journal.

Latvia: The Soviet occupation and incorporation Encyclopedia Britannica, . Discusses Soviet occupation and annexation of Latvia.

a manner

scholarly sources, before and after 1991.

that is

Taagepera, Rein (1986). Citizens' Peace Movement in the Soviet Baltic Republics. Journal of Peace Research 23 (2), 183-192.

Soon after, US President Ronald Reagan used a reception for Baltic Americans to comment on Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, stressing that the United States does not legally recognize the Soviet annexation of these states. (p. 189)

- so con
Stevenson, John R. (1965) Case Notes. The American Journal of International Law 59 (3), 642-653.

On motions of the Consuls General of the Governments in exile of Latvia and Estonia (joined in by the Attorney General of the State of New York), the court stated that the Government of the United States had never recognized the forceful occupation of Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union or the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. (p. 643)

fusing

Saburova, Irina (1955) The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States. Russian Review 14.1, 36-49.

that few thir

Prazmowska, Anita J. (1992). Review of Between Churchill and Stalin: The Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the Origins of the Grand Alliance by Steven Merritt Miner. The English Historical Review 107.424, 769-770.

In particular he sees British willingness to condone the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as a gesture which did little to improve Britain's negotiating position, but which encouraged Soviet expansionism. (p. 769)

Lillich, Richard B. (1972). The Anglo-Soviet Claims Agreement of 1968. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 21 (1), 1-14.

parties

Clearly, Great Britain's de facto recognition of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States carried with it no acceptance of the Soviet Union's claim that the Baltic nationalisation law had extraterritorial effects.

could ever be bothered

Lewis B. E. (1977). Soviet Taboo. Review of Vtoraya Mirovaya Voina, History of the Second World War by B. Liddel Gart (Russian translation). Soviet Studies 29 (4), 603-606.

Stalin's occupation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia (p. 143) and his designs on Romania and Bulgaria in 1940-41 (p. 145) are similarly deleted, along with quoted private opinion from the German side suggesting Russian willingness to join the Axis in order to extend its influence in this latter region. (p. 604)

to make hea

Page, Stanley W. (1960). Review of Soviet Policy toward the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1918-1940 by Albert N. Tarulis. The Journal of Modern History 32 (4), 411-412.

The final two-fifths of the book recounts the story of Soviet occupation of the Baltic States in terms of human experience and is by far the most arresting section. (p. 411)

Time Magazine, Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia.

--Martintg (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) s Some more sources for your reading pleasure, enjoy:

Bruce Parrott, State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia, entire chapter on the subject: Reversing Soviet Military Occupation

or tails of it, le :::t alone bring

John Ashley Soames Grenville, Bernard Wasserstein, The major international treaties of the twentieth century p.886 : "...A related issue was the continuing Russian military occupation and bases. The Baltic states demanded the withdrawal of all the ex-Soviet troops, numbering at least 100,000".

--Martintg (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)any kind of logical

resolution to what amounts to little more than a nationalist battleground of such inanity it is hard to express

- - - - WiTh

only words. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states should be split

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In fact the article now mostly about Soviet occupation, but its scope as defined in the lead is about both Nazi and Soviet occupations. I think this is made specially to make an impression of that the both occupations were equal. I've tried to move it to Occupation of Baltic states by the Soviet Union but my changes were reverted.--Dojarca (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Comparing half a century with three years, it's easy to see why most of this topic would involve Soviets. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Why the both should be in one article?--Dojarca (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, this is all inconsistent with normal WP procedures. Renaming and protecting an article (which is in fact a unilateral deletion) as a way to enforce your position after failed mediation... I think the article should be unprotected, and the problem should be debated and voted at the article talk page, as suppose to be per WP:Consensus.Biophys (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, the proposal had gotten at least three agreements before his move, on fairly valid grounds, so I think that the move is probably both in accord with WP:BOLD and probably most other extant policies and guidelines as well. Objecting parties are of course free to file complaints on noticeboards. I'm not sure that would do much good, but that's just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC) John, what I agreed to at least was: return the original article to the events of the occupation, full duration, Soviet + Nazi + Soviet create a new article with all the he-said/she-said of the Soviet/Russian contentions of non-occupation, who recognized what, et al., following WWII In no way did I agree to the split as implemented. PetersV TALK 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) User PetersV proposes to move any alternate points of view into a separate article such as already deleted Soviet occupation denialism and Denial of Soviet occupation. Note that the lettrer was re-created by him immediately after the closing of the deletion discussion which led the admin to protect the name against re-creation: --Dojarca (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC) John Carter, could you please give me any links? Where the splitting has been decided and to which articles? Biophys (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is where I got the idea. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for reply! I believe there is nothing wrong with creating new sub-articles. However, this article can be also kept as an "umbrella article". Why not? However, by making a protected redirect this article has been unilaterally deleted without an AfD discussion, which is against the rules. Now about the essence of the problem. I can help, since I am familiar with the issue and many editors here. This is an extremely sensitive subject, and we can only go through by following WP:Consensus. Let' return to a version prior to your move, perhaps protect the article for a week and start some discussion and perhaps voting. This is all standard.Biophys (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, policy and guidelines say that content shouldn't be duplicated in multiple articles, and I do think we want to follow policies and guidelines, right? :) By the way, Hiberniantears, you have mail. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, the action by Hiberniantears possibly falls under this ArbCom ruling. This ruling was not about admins, but protection of a redirection page without a preliminary discussion and consensus is basically the same. Now the "opposite side" can request an arbitration enforcement without any further discussion.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In fact the article now mostly about Soviet occupation, but its scope as defined in the lead is about both Nazi and Soviet occupations. I think this is made specially to make an impression of that the both occupations were equal. I've tried to move it to Occupation of Baltic states by the Soviet Union but my changes were reverted.--Dojarca (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparing half a century with three years, it's easy to see why most of this topic would involve Soviets. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the both should be in one article?--Dojarca (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is all inconsistent with normal WP procedures. Renaming and protecting an article (which is in fact a unilateral deletion) as a way to enforce your position after failed mediation... I think the article should be unprotected, and the problem should be debated and voted at the article talk page, as suppose to be per WP:Consensus.Biophys (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal had gotten at least three agreements before his move, on fairly valid grounds, so I think that the move is probably both in accord with WP:BOLD and probably most other extant policies and guidelines as well. Objecting parties are of course free to file complaints on noticeboards. I'm not sure that would do much good, but that's just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John, what I agreed to at least was:

return the original article to the events of the occupation, full duration, Soviet + Nazi + Soviet
create a new article with all the he-said/she-said of the Soviet/Russian contentions of non-occupation, who recognized what, et al., following WWII

In no way did I agree to the split as implemented. PetersV TALK 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User PetersV proposes to move any alternate points of view into a separate article such as already deleted Soviet occupation denialism and Denial of Soviet occupation. Note that the lettrer was re-created by him immediately after the closing of the deletion discussion which led the admin to protect the name against re-creation: --Dojarca (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, could you please give me any links? Where the splitting has been decided and to which articles? Biophys (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is where I got the idea. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reply! I believe there is nothing wrong with creating new sub-articles. However, this article can be also kept as an "umbrella article". Why not? However, by making a protected redirect this article has been unilaterally deleted without an AfD discussion, which is against the rules. Now about the essence of the problem. I can help, since I am familiar with the issue and many editors here. This is an extremely sensitive subject, and we can only go through by following WP:Consensus. Let' return to a version prior to your move, perhaps protect the article for a week and start some discussion and perhaps voting. This is all standard.Biophys (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, policy and guidelines say that content shouldn't be duplicated in multiple articles, and I do think we want to follow policies and guidelines, right? :) By the way, Hiberniantears, you have mail. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the action by Hiberniantears possibly falls under this ArbCom ruling. This ruling was not about admins, but protection of a redirection page without a preliminary discussion and consensus is basically the same. Now the "opposite side" can request an arbitration enforcement without any further discussion.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actions by Digwuren

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've added sourced matherial about de jure recognition of the Baltic states by some countries , (the source reads: of the Western countries Sweden, Switzerland the Netherlands and for a short time Australia (1974-Dec.1975) and New Zealand seem to have recognized the incorporation of the Baltic States de jure. But user Digwuren instantly reverted my edit. What shoulsd I do? Initiate a new revert war?--Dojarca (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC) No. He's clearly willing to edit war, and I'll block you both. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Seem" is unencyclopedic when it comes to "de jure". I'm sorry to see you continuing to placate Dojarca's pleas (you'll block Digwuren) as if Dojarca is the innocent party being attacked by rabid nationalists, but you've made your bed. With regards to the Netherlands (one of Dojarca's edits), for example, and this extends to African countries which came into being after WWII as successor states to their colonial status, recognition of the Soviet Union whether by succession or explicitly *does not confer de jure* recognition on the annexation of the Baltic states**. And yes I have sources. I am tired of Dojarca, Russavia, et al. taking content disputes to admins who do not know the subject matter. PetersV TALK 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Placate? I just pointed out that I would block him for warring on that point. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ah, "clearly willing to edit war", another judgement on what you expect from an editor in a mess of your making. You find conduct unbecoming of editors? Do your admin job after the violation. Don't go around prejudging editors and sharing those prejudices on talk pages. You're a sysop, start behaving like one. PetersV TALK 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) By "clearly willing to edit war" I meant that you were edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've added sourced matherial about de jure recognition of the Baltic states by some countries , (the source reads: of the Western countries Sweden, Switzerland the Netherlands and for a short time Australia (1974-Dec.1975) and New Zealand seem to have recognized the incorporation of the Baltic States de jure. But user Digwuren instantly reverted my edit. What shoulsd I do? Initiate a new revert war?--Dojarca (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. He's clearly willing to edit war, and I'll block you both. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Seem" is unencyclopedic when it comes to "de jure". I'm sorry to see you continuing to placate Dojarca's pleas (you'll block Digwuren) as if Dojarca is the innocent party being attacked by rabid nationalists, but you've made your bed. With regards to the Netherlands (one of Dojarca's edits), for example, and this extends to African countries which came into being after WWII as successor states to their colonial status, recognition of the Soviet Union whether by succession or explicitly does not confer de jure recognition on the annexation of the Baltic states. And yes I have sources. I am tired of Dojarca, Russavia, et al. taking content disputes to admins who do not know the subject matter. PetersV TALK 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Placate? I just pointed out that I would block him for warring on that point. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, "clearly willing to edit war", another judgement on what you expect from an editor in a mess of your making. You find conduct unbecoming of editors? Do your admin job after the violation. Don't go around prejudging editors and sharing those prejudices on talk pages. You're a sysop, start behaving like one. PetersV TALK 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By "clearly willing to edit war" I meant that you were edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Assumptions of Bad Faith

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This statement by you was flatly false and a ridiculous assumption of bad faith: while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination." There was absolutely zero "bad faith" about the AfD for "Baltic states and the Soviet Union". As just one example, the entire article purports to begin in 1944, 22 years after they both independently existed and four years after the invasion and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940. A historical mistake akin to starting an article on World War II in 1943. This is all explained at length in the AfD. I was not part of the Talk page discussion and found this morning the incredibly odd unilateral split. After a few clicks I learned that that the split was then shockingly protected by an administrator -- the same person conducting the unilateral split. For merely weighing in with an AfD on "Baltic states and the Soviet Union", I have now been accused of bad faith editing. I would rather the discussion on these issues come from informed viewpoints and be reached by consensus BEFORE huge changes occur. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) The page is still open to be edited by anyone. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC) How does this address the false bad faith accusation? I don't wish to start some bad blood or the like, and I was not part of your argument with editors on the Occupation of the Baltic States page the last few days preceding your unilateral split&protection, but I really think such false accusations should not be thrown around about other editors and that a more informed tone should be taken. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC) And, in all honesty, policy seems to indicate that reasonable people discuss changes to new articles before nominating them for deletion. It would have been a sign of good faith on your part had you done so. May I ask why you didn't? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Policy seems to indicate that reasonable people discuss restructuring of articles into new articles before making unilateral changes. It would have been a sign of good faith on Hiberniantears' part had he done so. May I ask why you don't address a similar question to Hiberniantears? Martintg (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) The evidence, which evidently you have never bothered to look at, shows that it was discussed. You yourself, as has already been noted, seemed to agree with it. On that basis, considering that you already know that it was discussed, I have to assume that the above question exists solely for purposes of WP:HARASSMENT, and evidently must formally warn you to cease making what you already know are false allegations regarding others. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) You are circling your wagons against, and accusing the wrong editors of acting in bad faith. "Discussed" = everything said by any Baltic editor wholly ignored as emotionally charged nationalist clap-trap by uninformed editors including an admin who took unilateral action and then salted the results against change. Your charges of harassment are yet another touchstone that you consider all Baltic editors to be individuals acting in bad faith. PetersV TALK 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (od) You might consider dealing less antagonistically with Baltic editors. You seem bent on escalating--"formally warn" when an editor professes good faith? You might consider not pouring gasoline on the fire. PetersV TALK 04:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I really don't want to start some sort of bad blood or tit-for-tat on this issue, and started this topic only because I thought that the one rather pointed accusation of bad faith was non-productive (as well as being just false). I honestly think that the initial unilateral split and protect was made, not out of bad faith, but because of: (1) a lack of historical knowledge on the subject (discussed on ANI page, I won't blather about it here); (2) not realizing the substantive problems associated with an artificial temporal partition of articles at 1944; and (3) not taking into account that the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" would be, let's just say highly historically inaccurate, to govern only post-1944 facts. For the record, I agree that Eastern European articles can become particularly acrimonious (though I'm not sure that it is all because of various Russian, Polish, German, et al. "nationalists" as some charge). And it does cause me to refrain from editing such articles from time-to-time. There are also extremely knowledgeable editors on these topics working on most of the pages.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Appreciated, and bear in mind that the article need not be constrained to 1944-1991. I think that the article split I created can exist side by side. A treatment of WWII conflict between the Soviets and the Nazis, as well as a history of Soviet claims, and Soviet control over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I have backed away from the topic for the time being to allow the community to voice views on my actions, but the article can easily consider events pre-war, just feel free to add them. Think of it more as "Baltic states in the Soviet Union", and if that seems to be a more appropriate title, I will be happy to move the article a week or so down the road. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I trust you've seen my proposal elsewhere. Your timeline divide is not appropriate; however, in terms of separating content to make it manageable, Occupation of... and Baltic-Soviet relations, along with a list article of de jure, de facto, and non-recognition might work. PetersV TALK 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Comment Done in good faith or not, it doesn't really matter. The only thing that was achieved with this backing up the "valid Soviet POV" of a single editor -the can of worms that was put to sleep more than a year ago has been opened up again.--Termer (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Do you really think that quiety without neutrality is good?--Dojarca (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Your "neutrality" and that espoused by Russavia under the banner that no one is a holder of the truth is a cynical attempt to remove all historical fact as being relevant to the issue of Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Participating editors (including your contributions) have bent over backward to reflect the evolution of Soviet through to current official Russian POV, including the Russian Duma declaration that Latvia (and by extension, all) joined the USSR legally according to international law. Since no basis in fact has ever been produced for that declaration, an article which sticks to historical facts and accurately represents the Soviet->Russian POV without WP:OR as to motives is the most neutral possible. Russavia's demand that the article must contain a list of 200 countries and what they thought is a Red (capital "R") herring. That list is certainly useful and informative, but it ultimately has no bearing, as we have documented statements as to legality and illegality (from both parties and their successors) and treaties between the parties which speak to the legality and illegality of subsequent actions. Those to be examined via reputable scholarly sources as the basis for article narrative. PetersV TALK 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) You may not repeat. We already knew that you know the truth.--Dojarca (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC) You know, studying is a funny process. It makes you know stuff. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This statement by you was flatly false and a ridiculous assumption of bad faith: while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination."

There was absolutely zero "bad faith" about the AfD for "Baltic states and the Soviet Union". As just one example, the entire article purports to begin in 1944, 22 years after they both independently existed and four years after the invasion and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940. A historical mistake akin to starting an article on World War II in 1943. This is all explained at length in the AfD.

I was not part of the Talk page discussion and found this morning the incredibly odd unilateral split. After a few clicks I learned that that the split was then shockingly protected by an administrator -- the same person conducting the unilateral split. For merely weighing in with an AfD on "Baltic states and the Soviet Union", I have now been accused of bad faith editing.

I would rather the discussion on these issues come from informed viewpoints and be reached by consensus BEFORE huge changes occur. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is still open to be edited by anyone. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How does this address the false bad faith accusation? I don't wish to start some bad blood or the like, and I was not part of your argument with editors on the Occupation of the Baltic States page the last few days preceding your unilateral split&protection, but I really think such false accusations should not be thrown around about other editors and that a more informed tone should be taken. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And, in all honesty, policy seems to indicate that reasonable people discuss changes to new articles before nominating them for deletion. It would have been a sign of good faith on your part had you done so. May I ask why you didn't? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy seems to indicate that reasonable people discuss restructuring of articles into new articles before making unilateral changes. It would have been a sign of good faith on Hiberniantears' part had he done so. May I ask why you don't address a similar question to Hiberniantears? Martintg (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidence, which evidently you have never bothered to look at, shows that it was discussed. You yourself, as has already been noted, seemed to agree with it. On that basis, considering that you already know that it was discussed, I have to assume that the above question exists solely for purposes of WP:HARASSMENT, and evidently must formally warn you to cease making what you already know are false allegations regarding others. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are circling your wagons against, and accusing the wrong editors of acting in bad faith. "Discussed" = everything said by any Baltic editor wholly ignored as emotionally charged nationalist clap-trap by uninformed editors including an admin who took unilateral action and then salted the results against change. Your charges of harassment are yet another touchstone that you consider all Baltic editors to be individuals acting in bad faith. PetersV TALK 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) You might consider dealing less antagonistically with Baltic editors. You seem bent on escalating--"formally warn" when an editor professes good faith? You might consider not pouring gasoline on the fire. PetersV TALK 04:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to start some sort of bad blood or tit-for-tat on this issue, and started this topic only because I thought that the one rather pointed accusation of bad faith was non-productive (as well as being just false).

I honestly think that the initial unilateral split and protect was made, not out of bad faith, but because of: (1) a lack of historical knowledge on the subject (discussed on ANI page, I won't blather about it here); (2) not realizing the substantive problems associated with an artificial temporal partition of articles at 1944; and (3) not taking into account that the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" would be, let's just say highly historically inaccurate, to govern only post-1944 facts.

For the record, I agree that Eastern European articles can become particularly acrimonious (though I'm not sure that it is all because of various Russian, Polish, German, et al. "nationalists" as some charge). And it does cause me to refrain from editing such articles from time-to-time. There are also extremely knowledgeable editors on these topics working on most of the pages.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, and bear in mind that the article need not be constrained to 1944-1991. I think that the article split I created can exist side by side. A treatment of WWII conflict between the Soviets and the Nazis, as well as a history of Soviet claims, and Soviet control over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I have backed away from the topic for the time being to allow the community to voice views on my actions, but the article can easily consider events pre-war, just feel free to add them. Think of it more as "Baltic states in the Soviet Union", and if that seems to be a more appropriate title, I will be happy to move the article a week or so down the road. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I trust you've seen my proposal elsewhere. Your timeline divide is not appropriate; however, in terms of separating content to make it manageable, Occupation of... and Baltic-Soviet relations, along with a list article of de jure, de facto, and non-recognition might work. PetersV TALK 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Done in good faith or not, it doesn't really matter. The only thing that was achieved with this backing up the "valid Soviet POV" of a single editor -the can of worms that was put to sleep more than a year ago has been opened up again.--Termer (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that quiety without neutrality is good?--Dojarca (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "neutrality" and that espoused by Russavia under the banner that no one is a holder of the truth is a cynical attempt to remove all historical fact as being relevant to the issue of Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Participating editors (including your contributions) have bent over backward to reflect the evolution of Soviet through to current official Russian POV, including the Russian Duma declaration that Latvia (and by extension, all) joined the USSR legally according to international law. Since no basis in fact has ever been produced for that declaration, an article which sticks to historical facts and accurately represents the Soviet->Russian POV without WP:OR as to motives is the most neutral possible. Russavia's demand that the article must contain a list of 200 countries and what they thought is a Red (capital "R") herring. That list is certainly useful and informative, but it ultimately has no bearing, as we have documented statements as to legality and illegality (from both parties and their successors) and treaties between the parties which speak to the legality and illegality of subsequent actions. Those to be examined via reputable scholarly sources as the basis for article narrative. PetersV TALK 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may not repeat. We already knew that you know the truth.--Dojarca (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, studying is a funny process. It makes you know stuff. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

M. m. melampus

Hi, I refer to this page that you have just deleted. It is mentioned in Japanese Marten so I see no reason why it should not be a redirect. Any thoughts, please? TerriersFan (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll make it a redirect right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

John Misci

My page on John Misci was recently deleted. John Misci is a jewish comedian. The page i made on him was to explain past things on his TV show is Isreal called "Diarreha Embargo". If you could un-delete it i would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobithy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

ArbCom

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just wondering what you think of possibly adding something to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Clafifications and other requests regarding the Baltic states subject, possibly for an clear extension of the time period of the previous ruling. Oh, and, by the way, with the Mediation rejected, ArbCom is now the only body in a position to address or resolve this matter, at least in so far as I am aware. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) If this goes to ArbCom it will not be pretty. I have stonewalled nothing, I have only stated that for the Soviet/Russian POV to be given "equality" and "balance", it must have the same demonstrated basis in verifiable fact. We all know that is quite impossible as it is a POV based on lies and fabrications endlessly repeated for now nearly 70 years. I am quite sorry you've allowed Dojarca and Russavia make this out to be about "valid POV"s and that you continue to escalate this. There's no reason to. Let us get back to editing. The split as currently proposed, regardless of how it came about, will allow for a more thorough exploration of the diplomatic relationship and opposite contentions of occupation and liberation where Dojarca and Russavia are free to contribute (as Dojarca has already contributed in the past). But POVs do not change abrogation of treaties and illegality of actions and how those actions must, based on fact--not opinion, be characterized. PetersV TALK 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Are you indicating that moving forward you are OK with the article split? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict, before yours above) I realize I'm likely beating a dead horse and you'll next accuse me of harassment. But have you ever stopped to wonder why Russia always speaks of the Baltics being ungrateful for their "liberation" from Nazism—actually, the Soviets suffered more than 300,000 casualties (dead, wounded, MIA) trying to take the last bit of Latvia that held out hoping for independence until the end of the war—and never makes mention that the USSR was the first to invade? Ponder that question before you make more unfounded and unfortunate accusations of bad faith. PetersV TALK 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Since you ask, it can wind up being a good solution to split as long as it's not a timeline boundary as you did, but an article of events of the occupations (Soviet /Nazi /Soviet) and an parallel article on the Baltic-Soviet relationship for its full length going back to its inception with Bolshevist Russia. (There's plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth to be had over Brest-Litovsk as well, from the very start--but at least there it actually is about POVs regarding the same thing, the treaty. There's no Baltic POV per se, but there is a "Russian" as in nationalist one.) PetersV TALK 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC) My own reasons for caring (Latvian) aside, the Baltics are a truly fascinating topic for anyone interested in international law, as you are. You might also read Attitudes of the Major Soviet Nationalities (Latvian chapter), a MIT study, for more historical background. PetersV TALK 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I didn't make a time specific split. Baltic states and the Soviet Union is a title that I thought was appropriate because it is so general that it neither implies nor enforces any constraints outside of the necessary existence of the Soviet Union. The title does not place greater weight on any of the various POV's. What content was originally in the article is simply what I removed from Occupation of the Baltic states, because all I did was cut and paste it. If there was anything earlier, I would have removed that as well, but there wasn't, and nothing was or is stopping you or anyone else from creating it. Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II also carries no POV since there is no disagreement that the Baltic states were contested territory during World War II. That there are additional views on the duration of occupation can be handily discussed in Baltic states and the Soviet Union, and there are numerous articles (including On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia which is on today's main page) that can be linked to from either article to include all POV's. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we're making progress. Certainly there is a disconnect here. If one article, formerly for the whole period, is now only events during WWII, then the rest (split off) is not (therefore after WWII, if not also before). So we have a cleavage in the narrative at the end of WWII per your retitling. Soviets/now Russia say the only occupation during WWII was of the Latvian SSR by Nazi Germany. Therefore, applying "during WWII" does nothing to address the so-called "POV" issue. That "issue" can be "addressed" only if the Russian POV is reflected as "equally valid" which it is not and the article title changed to some milquetoast so as to not offend a POV based on demonstrable and documented lies and fabrication. Nothing to do with alleged Baltic versus Russian POV. So: adding "during WWII" does not solve the issue as you believe it does, as the Soviet view is that the only "contested" territory was the occupation by Nazi Germany of the legally according to international law part of the USSR Baltic States the issue you are seeking to solve to "carry no POV" (effectively put POV based on lies on par with historical fact, likely not your intention but certainly the end result) requires not referring to the Soviet presence in the Baltics as an "occupation" at any time (except as "opinion") and certainly never in any title having to do with any acts by the USSR within Baltic territory. So, again, there is a Russian position based on documented lies and fabrication. Then there are documented historical facts, and a position (not uniquely Baltic) based on those facts. The notion that one must average lies and facts to achieve "NPOV" is what you are ultimately suggesting--again, not that it is your intention, but it is the result. Are we making progress? PetersV TALK 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I think where you are running into trouble is getting beyond the lies and fabrication part. The POV isn't entirely based on lies and fabrication. The actual event itself is based on lies and fabrication. Which is to say, the Baltic states became a part of the Soviet Union through lies, fabrication, and conquest. Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support. Neither one is right or wrong, and an NPOV treatment of the topic takes them both into account. If the timeline is troublesome, Baltic states and the Soviet Union can just as easily become Baltic states in the Soviet Union so as to allow the article topic to be focused purely on the post war result of what is discussed in Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. In fact, I think that would probably make more sense. The reason I went with Baltic states and the Soviet Union is that Martins suggested it, and I thought it would address any concerns on your part that the article gives more credit in the title to the Soviet POV. If you don't think that the Baltic states were ever in the Soviet Union, then I felt that you would find Baltic states in the Soviet Union to be offensive... thus the more general title that I used. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC) (od) Well we are making progress. "Which is to say, the Baltic states became a part of the Soviet Union through lies, fabrication, and conquest. Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support." Well that is the problem. The Russian say the moon is made of cheese regardless of the facts. Everyone else says no, see here, we've got moon rocks right here. Your two sentences taken together are an oxymoron. Your first sentence states Soviet presence is illegitimate and can only be an occupation, your second sentence states legitimacy is purely a matter of opinion regardless of circumstances. And so the solution: One article on the illegal occupation, using the word occupation, backed by reputable sources having nothing to do with the derided Baltic nationalist "POV"; a second article discussing history, real and not, and portrayals thereof, called relations or similar, representing all viewpoints and their origin regardless of facts. I fully support documenting the Soviet/Russian positions. "Both POVs have credence" is incorrect. Both "POVs" have believers, but only one "POV" has factual credibility. To say both are valid inappropriately posits that one represents history based on emotions only (that is, fact-free) and not based on historical fact. The role of an encyclopedia regaring history is to factually convey events. That can also include conveying emotions around those events, but not that all emotions constitute equally valid (as in factually validated) perspectives of history. PetersV TALK 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) One's emotions are "valid" regardless of their ultimate basis, those emotions are based on one's understanding of the outside world. But we must never confuse such emotional validity with factual validity. I am not saying I am entitled to my emotions and opposing editors are not. I am saying that the article regarding history must be based on facts, and that the article based on the relationship can examine both fact and fabrication and their role in collective memory. PetersV TALK 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Let's just back up a second and recognize that this isn't about the Soviets saying the moon is made of cheese in spite of American's bringing back moon rocks. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Well, this is where I need some help in better understanding your position. How is it not? Position #1 repeated for 70 years is based on fiction, position #2 also repeated for 70 years is based on fact. If there weren't an overwhelming amount of evidence that is the case, one would have to revert to opinion, i.e., speculation. There is, however, no need to speculate, so I'd like to understand your statement better. PetersV TALK 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just wondering what you think of possibly adding something to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Clafifications and other requests regarding the Baltic states subject, possibly for an clear extension of the time period of the previous ruling. Oh, and, by the way, with the Mediation rejected, ArbCom is now the only body in a position to address or resolve this matter, at least in so far as I am aware. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If this goes to ArbCom it will not be pretty. I have stonewalled nothing, I have only stated that for the Soviet/Russian POV to be given "equality" and "balance", it must have the same demonstrated basis in verifiable fact. We all know that is quite impossible as it is a POV based on lies and fabrications endlessly repeated for now nearly 70 years. I am quite sorry you've allowed Dojarca and Russavia make this out to be about "valid POV"s and that you continue to escalate this. There's no reason to. Let us get back to editing. The split as currently proposed, regardless of how it came about, will allow for a more thorough exploration of the diplomatic relationship and opposite contentions of occupation and liberation where Dojarca and Russavia are free to contribute (as Dojarca has already contributed in the past). But POVs do not change abrogation of treaties and illegality of actions and how those actions must, based on fact--not opinion, be characterized. PetersV TALK 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you indicating that moving forward you are OK with the article split? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, before yours above) I realize I'm likely beating a dead horse and you'll next accuse me of harassment. But have you ever stopped to wonder why Russia always speaks of the Baltics being ungrateful for their "liberation" from Nazism—actually, the Soviets suffered more than 300,000 casualties (dead, wounded, MIA) trying to take the last bit of Latvia that held out hoping for independence until the end of the war—and never makes mention that the USSR was the first to invade? Ponder that question before you make more unfounded and unfortunate accusations of bad faith. PetersV TALK 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, it can wind up being a good solution to split as long as it's not a timeline boundary as you did, but an article of events of the occupations (Soviet /Nazi /Soviet) and an parallel article on the Baltic-Soviet relationship for its full length going back to its inception with Bolshevist Russia. (There's plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth to be had over Brest-Litovsk as well, from the very start--but at least there it actually is about POVs regarding the same thing, the treaty. There's no Baltic POV per se, but there is a "Russian" as in nationalist one.) PetersV TALK 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My own reasons for caring (Latvian) aside, the Baltics are a truly fascinating topic for anyone interested in international law, as you are. You might also read Attitudes of the Major Soviet Nationalities (Latvian chapter), a MIT study, for more historical background. PetersV TALK 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make a time specific split. Baltic states and the Soviet Union is a title that I thought was appropriate because it is so general that it neither implies nor enforces any constraints outside of the necessary existence of the Soviet Union. The title does not place greater weight on any of the various POV's. What content was originally in the article is simply what I removed from Occupation of the Baltic states, because all I did was cut and paste it. If there was anything earlier, I would have removed that as well, but there wasn't, and nothing was or is stopping you or anyone else from creating it. Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II also carries no POV since there is no disagreement that the Baltic states were contested territory during World War II. That there are additional views on the duration of occupation can be handily discussed in Baltic states and the Soviet Union, and there are numerous articles (including On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia which is on today's main page) that can be linked to from either article to include all POV's. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're making progress. Certainly there is a disconnect here. If one article, formerly for the whole period, is now only events during WWII, then the rest (split off) is not (therefore after WWII, if not also before). So we have a cleavage in the narrative at the end of WWII per your retitling. Soviets/now Russia say the only occupation during WWII was of the Latvian SSR by Nazi Germany. Therefore, applying "during WWII" does nothing to address the so-called "POV" issue. That "issue" can be "addressed" only if the Russian POV is reflected as "equally valid" which it is not and the article title changed to some milquetoast so as to not offend a POV based on demonstrable and documented lies and fabrication. Nothing to do with alleged Baltic versus Russian POV. So:

adding "during WWII" does not solve the issue as you believe it does, as the Soviet view is that the only "contested" territory was the occupation by Nazi Germany of the legally according to international law part of the USSR Baltic States
the issue you are seeking to solve to "carry no POV" (effectively put POV based on lies on par with historical fact, likely not your intention but certainly the end result) requires not referring to the Soviet presence in the Baltics as an "occupation" at any time (except as "opinion") and certainly never in any title having to do with any acts by the USSR within Baltic territory.

So, again, there is a Russian position based on documented lies and fabrication. Then there are documented historical facts, and a position (not uniquely Baltic) based on those facts. The notion that one must average lies and facts to achieve "NPOV" is what you are ultimately suggesting--again, not that it is your intention, but it is the result. Are we making progress? PetersV TALK 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think where you are running into trouble is getting beyond the lies and fabrication part. The POV isn't entirely based on lies and fabrication. The actual event itself is based on lies and fabrication. Which is to say, the Baltic states became a part of the Soviet Union through lies, fabrication, and conquest. Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support. Neither one is right or wrong, and an NPOV treatment of the topic takes them both into account. If the timeline is troublesome, Baltic states and the Soviet Union can just as easily become Baltic states in the Soviet Union so as to allow the article topic to be focused purely on the post war result of what is discussed in Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. In fact, I think that would probably make more sense. The reason I went with Baltic states and the Soviet Union is that Martins suggested it, and I thought it would address any concerns on your part that the article gives more credit in the title to the Soviet POV. If you don't think that the Baltic states were ever in the Soviet Union, then I felt that you would find Baltic states in the Soviet Union to be offensive... thus the more general title that I used. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well we are making progress. "Which is to say, the Baltic states became a part of the Soviet Union through lies, fabrication, and conquest. Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support." Well that is the problem. The Russian say the moon is made of cheese regardless of the facts. Everyone else says no, see here, we've got moon rocks right here. Your two sentences taken together are an oxymoron. Your first sentence states Soviet presence is illegitimate and can only be an occupation, your second sentence states legitimacy is purely a matter of opinion regardless of circumstances. And so the solution: One article on the illegal occupation, using the word occupation, backed by reputable sources having nothing to do with the derided Baltic nationalist "POV"; a second article discussing history, real and not, and portrayals thereof, called relations or similar, representing all viewpoints and their origin regardless of facts. I fully support documenting the Soviet/Russian positions.

"Both POVs have credence" is incorrect. Both "POVs" have believers, but only one "POV" has factual credibility. To say both are valid inappropriately posits that one represents history based on emotions only (that is, fact-free) and not based on historical fact. The role of an encyclopedia regaring history is to factually convey events. That can also include conveying emotions around those events, but not that all emotions constitute equally valid (as in factually validated) perspectives of history. PetersV TALK 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One's emotions are "valid" regardless of their ultimate basis, those emotions are based on one's understanding of the outside world. But we must never confuse such emotional validity with factual validity. I am not saying I am entitled to my emotions and opposing editors are not. I am saying that the article regarding history must be based on facts, and that the article based on the relationship can examine both fact and fabrication and their role in collective memory. PetersV TALK 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just back up a second and recognize that this isn't about the Soviets saying the moon is made of cheese in spite of American's bringing back moon rocks. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is where I need some help in better understanding your position. How is it not? Position #1 repeated for 70 years is based on fiction, position #2 also repeated for 70 years is based on fact. If there weren't an overwhelming amount of evidence that is the case, one would have to revert to opinion, i.e., speculation. There is, however, no need to speculate, so I'd like to understand your statement better. PetersV TALK 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Our discussion

I see you've archived it. I regret you've cut off our discussion rather than help me understand your position. So be it, per my earlier reply prior to this now failed attempt at dialog, I won't be contacting you again on this. PetersV TALK 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We're just going around in circles Peters, and it appears that is exactly what you want to do. I'm not going to take your side, and I'm not going to take the Soviet side. Instead, as I have been doing, I'm going to ensure that you all have the opportunity to be heard. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's sad, it's not about "my" side versus the "Soviet" side. It is simply about historical facts, more and more documented in non-Baltic, non-Soviet, non-Russian (cottage industry supporting Soviet version of history) reputable scholarly sources. Some of the statements you have made about nationalists and occupation theory demonstrate a phenomenal lack of understanding or desire to understand. I am sorry Dojarca by reaching out to a purported adversary has apparently succeeded in poisoning you on this issue. Enough said, likely my last correspondence with you on this. I will respond to yours but I will not initiate any further.PetersV TALK 06:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The following section is archived for quarantine
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: "Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support." (Hiberniantears) --"Legitimate incorporation"? Wow, I just read that section above. I'm not being accusatory here of your motives, but instead factual with this description of such a statement: this literally sounds like some sort of fringe statement taken from the pages of an old Hitler or Stalin released war material in 1940 after each of their invasions splitting Poland, Romania and the Baltics per the secret protocols. Not even the few countries (including some pretty radical regimes) that later recognized the Baltics as being part of the Soviet Union just to move on with diplomatic relations have taken that position that I've seen. --Re "emotional support": Who cares? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia reflecting major legitimate historical sources, not an emotional pillow cushion. Re: "take the Soviet side" (Hiberniantears) --This is an encyclopedia citing historical sources. What major reliable historian still takes the position that the invasion and annexation of the Baltic States by either Stalin (Latvian SSR, Estonian SSR and Lithuanian SSR or Hilter (Reichskommissariat Ostland) were "legitimate incorporations". Must we throw out the sources and now change The Holocaust article to "East European ethnicities and Germany" lest one discount the "Nazi side" of sources? I have no problem with an article noting the old Nazi or Soviet positions, but this should in no way govern the actual title of articles when it doesn't reflect the major historical sources. --I just read this. Again, assuming no bad intentions, you appear to have gotten sucked into action by an editor espousing seriously WP:Fringe viewpoints (perhaps the characterization of modern Russians being like "Jews in Germany in the mid-1930s" should have tipped you off). Your statement to him that "I think that regardless of what we come up with, it will get the ire of nationalist editors " is more than a bit shocking -- who exactly are these "nationalist editors" opposing the action you "came up with" with this editor? Perhaps more shockingly, this editor suggested the notion of putting the historical sources regarding invasions and annexations into "Soviet occupation theory in the post-Soviet states" to which you seriously replied 'Excellent point. I think an 'occupation theory' may be one component of the larger subject." --I would seriously suggest, as one editor also suggested above, reading major modern historical sources and steering clear of editors' assertions of WP:Fringe material.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The following section is archived for quarantine

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re: "Whether you regard that as an occupation or a legitimate incorporation of territory is a POV, and in this case, both POVs have credence, and both have emotional support." (Hiberniantears)

--"Legitimate incorporation"? Wow, I just read that section above. I'm not being accusatory here of your motives, but instead factual with this description of such a statement: this literally sounds like some sort of fringe statement taken from the pages of an old Hitler or Stalin released war material in 1940 after each of their invasions splitting Poland, Romania and the Baltics per the secret protocols. Not even the few countries (including some pretty radical regimes) that later recognized the Baltics as being part of the Soviet Union just to move on with diplomatic relations have taken that position that I've seen.

--Re "emotional support": Who cares? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia reflecting major legitimate historical sources, not an emotional pillow cushion.

Re: "take the Soviet side" (Hiberniantears)

--This is an encyclopedia citing historical sources. What major reliable historian still takes the position that the invasion and annexation of the Baltic States by either Stalin (Latvian SSR, Estonian SSR and Lithuanian SSR or Hilter (Reichskommissariat Ostland) were "legitimate incorporations". Must we throw out the sources and now change The Holocaust article to "East European ethnicities and Germany" lest one discount the "Nazi side" of sources? I have no problem with an article noting the old Nazi or Soviet positions, but this should in no way govern the actual title of articles when it doesn't reflect the major historical sources.

--I just read this. Again, assuming no bad intentions, you appear to have gotten sucked into action by an editor espousing seriously WP:Fringe viewpoints (perhaps the characterization of modern Russians being like "Jews in Germany in the mid-1930s" should have tipped you off). Your statement to him that "I think that regardless of what we come up with, it will get the ire of nationalist editors " is more than a bit shocking -- who exactly are these "nationalist editors" opposing the action you "came up with" with this editor? Perhaps more shockingly, this editor suggested the notion of putting the historical sources regarding invasions and annexations into "Soviet occupation theory in the post-Soviet states" to which you seriously replied 'Excellent point. I think an 'occupation theory' may be one component of the larger subject."

--I would seriously suggest, as one editor also suggested above, reading major modern historical sources and steering clear of editors' assertions of WP:Fringe material.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's provide some sources

Quarantined due to tag teaming
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David J. Smith is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies. He has published extensively in the area of contemporary Baltic history and international relations, with particular reference to issues of nationalism and identity politics. This is what Smith writes in his book Estonia: Independence and European integration, Published by Routledge, 2001. Page xix: "With the exception of states such as Nazi Germany and Sweden, the international community condemned this illegal annexation and never gave legal recognition to the Soviet rule over the Baltic states. This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that de jure, Estonia remained an independent state under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940-91." Chapter 2 titled: "The Long Second World War: Estonia Under Occupation 1940-91" pp33-64 I don't think David Smith could be considered a "Baltic nationalist" by any stretch of the imagination, but he certainly is an expert in his field. Could you kindly provide a similar independent secondary source to support your claim Soviet incorporation was legitimate and refutes the conclusions of David Smith. --Martintg (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I think you believe, despite everything I've said (and you have ignored), that I disagree with the illegality of the Soviet aquisition/occupation/conquest/pwning of the Baltic states. My only point all along has been that it did happen, regardless of the legitimacy of it. I'm fairly certain you understand that this is my position, but are deliberately yanking my chain. When you ask me to find a source that refutes your source, it assumes that I'm a party to your content dispute. I'm not, and did not mean to be. Maybe its my fault that I grew up with maps like this. But that is an American map, and you need to understand that my bias, as for most Americans, is anti-Soviet. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I think you appear to be making certain wrong assumptions about my request. It is simply a request for any sources you may have available that may have motivated your actions. The existence of maps of the Soviet Union with the Baltic states doesn't refute the fact of occupation, no more than the existence of a map of the Großdeutsches Reich refutes the fact that Nazi Germany occupied Czechoslovakia and turned a portion of it into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia within the boundary of the Greater German Reich. Relying on maps alone to form a view is synthesis. Just to clarify, you do believe, do you not, that the title Occupation of the Baltic states is POV because you believe the view that these states where occupied from 1940 to 1991 is Baltic nationalist POV which needs to be balanced with the Soviet POV, otherwise you wouldn't have moved the article in the first place, right? Now I understand the issues of Cold War propaganda from both sides. But the Cold War ended long ago and Soviet Union is long extinct, authors have had time to reflect and analyze the actions of the Soviet Union and the West during that period. Here we have a post-Cold War book published in 2001 written by a non-nationalist expert in the field, who quite clearly draws the conclusion that the Baltic states (in this particular case Estonia) was in fact occupied from 1940 to 1991. Now the Soviet Union clearly thought otherwise, but should we give the viewpoint of a defunct state and some Wikipedian like User:Dojarca equal weight to that held by modern post-Cold War academics, necessitating an article move? This is what your article move implied. Now this article move and split was originally Dojarca suggestion, so what I don't understand is why was his lone viewpoint given more weight than the numerous editors opposing the move and split. I certainly didn't support the move and split, but I never opposed the creation of a new article Baltics states and the Soviet Union either. I'm from Australia so I certainly can't be called a "Baltic nationalist". If you are not party to this content dispute (and you certainly listed yourself as a party in the mediation case), what is motivating you to continue to pursue this issue on behalf of Dojarca, opposing the page move back to the original title and perhaps even seeking an extension of sanctions via ArbCom, it seems. What are you actually after here? --Martintg (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Vecrumba, your efforts are commendable, but after Hiberniantears admitted himself that he's enforcing a viewpoint from his school age -- when grass was greener and sky was bluer --, I really don't understand why you do this. It's not like he respects reliable sources, so it's obvious that he can't be convinced by presenting sources. It's not like he respects fellow editors, so he'll just make weird stuff up and ascribe it to you. His stonewalling here is merely another episode of the same pattern of administrative abuse we've seen for last week or so and -- you know I don't say it lightly -- the only stable solution is desysopping of the abusive admin. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quarantined due to tag teaming

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

David J. Smith is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies. He has published extensively in the area of contemporary Baltic history and international relations, with particular reference to issues of nationalism and identity politics.

This is what Smith writes in his book Estonia: Independence and European integration, Published by Routledge, 2001.

I don't think David Smith could be considered a "Baltic nationalist" by any stretch of the imagination, but he certainly is an expert in his field.

Could you kindly provide a similar independent secondary source to support your claim Soviet incorporation was legitimate and refutes the conclusions of David Smith. --Martintg (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you believe, despite everything I've said (and you have ignored), that I disagree with the illegality of the Soviet aquisition/occupation/conquest/pwning of the Baltic states. My only point all along has been that it did happen, regardless of the legitimacy of it. I'm fairly certain you understand that this is my position, but are deliberately yanking my chain. When you ask me to find a source that refutes your source, it assumes that I'm a party to your content dispute. I'm not, and did not mean to be. Maybe its my fault that I grew up with maps like this. But that is an American map, and you need to understand that my bias, as for most Americans, is anti-Soviet. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you appear to be making certain wrong assumptions about my request. It is simply a request for any sources you may have available that may have motivated your actions. The existence of maps of the Soviet Union with the Baltic states doesn't refute the fact of occupation, no more than the existence of a map of the Großdeutsches Reich refutes the fact that Nazi Germany occupied Czechoslovakia and turned a portion of it into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia within the boundary of the Greater German Reich. Relying on maps alone to form a view is synthesis.

Just to clarify, you do believe, do you not, that the title Occupation of the Baltic states is POV because you believe the view that these states where occupied from 1940 to 1991 is Baltic nationalist POV which needs to be balanced with the Soviet POV, otherwise you wouldn't have moved the article in the first place, right? Now I understand the issues of Cold War propaganda from both sides. But the Cold War ended long ago and Soviet Union is long extinct, authors have had time to reflect and analyze the actions of the Soviet Union and the West during that period. Here we have a post-Cold War book published in 2001 written by a non-nationalist expert in the field, who quite clearly draws the conclusion that the Baltic states (in this particular case Estonia) was in fact occupied from 1940 to 1991.

Now the Soviet Union clearly thought otherwise, but should we give the viewpoint of a defunct state and some Wikipedian like User:Dojarca equal weight to that held by modern post-Cold War academics, necessitating an article move? This is what your article move implied. Now this article move and split was originally Dojarca suggestion, so what I don't understand is why was his lone viewpoint given more weight than the numerous editors opposing the move and split. I certainly didn't support the move and split, but I never opposed the creation of a new article Baltics states and the Soviet Union either. I'm from Australia so I certainly can't be called a "Baltic nationalist". If you are not party to this content dispute (and you certainly listed yourself as a party in the mediation case), what is motivating you to continue to pursue this issue on behalf of Dojarca, opposing the page move back to the original title and perhaps even seeking an extension of sanctions via ArbCom, it seems. What are you actually after here? --Martintg (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your efforts are commendable, but after Hiberniantears admitted himself that he's enforcing a viewpoint from his school age -- when grass was greener and sky was bluer --, I really don't understand why you do this. It's not like he respects reliable sources, so it's obvious that he can't be convinced by presenting sources. It's not like he respects fellow editors, so he'll just make weird stuff up and ascribe it to you. His stonewalling here is merely another episode of the same pattern of administrative abuse we've seen for last week or so and -- you know I don't say it lightly -- the only stable solution is desysopping of the abusive admin. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Feeding more assumptions of bad faith. Introspection? PetersV TALK 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just more accurate than "troll". Hiberniantears (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say the above and this really is a gross assumption of bad faith regarding my intentions. It seems rather obvious that Digwuren was addressing his comments to Vecrumba and so should have really gone in the section above this. The idea that some kind of tag teaming is going on is really bizarre, when I am trying to sort some issues out with you. Martintg (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology, in both gross and net terms. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Odja Baba

Hi, I would like you to revert the delition of the entry Odja Baba. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoannisKaramitros (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ioannis. The article does not appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. I would be happy to send you a copy of the deleted version. Likewise, if you have further information that could help bring the article up to Misplaced Pages's standards, feel free to let me know, and I would be happy to help you bring the article back on line. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block message for Nadishan

The block message for Nadishan says that the block is temporary; the block log says that the block was indefinite. It would be helpful if the two said the same thing. That having been noted, good block; the editor deserved it. Enjoy a cookie. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A More Perfect Onion (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

DOH!! ;-) Thanks for keeping me on my toes! Hiberniantears (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done That's what we're all here for. Happy to help. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:90.196.214.174 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for stopping that bluesky vandal, but why no block message to go with the block? Also, I note the target articles were all linked from the main page if that's any use.LeadSongDog come howl 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to skip the block notice for IP's because I have encountered a number of people in real life who were more confused by the message. By no means a hard and fast rule for me. In this particular case, because the IP had been blocked twice this week already, I didn't think the notice would be of much value to the person behind that IP. That said, I'm happy to put a notice on their talk page if you want me to. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I just think it causes less confusion if there's more of the same later. Your call of course. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl 02:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello ,Help

I Discovery the man User:Laurent1979 push his Taiwan independence viewpoint in everywhere , he undo any edit if The opinion is dissimilar, hope you can Stopping he, Thanks. Troijtgotigjr (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/216.124.166.2

Do you think you can block for longer? This was the 6th block and each time its block expires, it quickly returns to vandalize again. Enigma 19:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I extended it a year... I'm hesitant to go further given that it is a school IP. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Undelete Killybegs GAA andDungloe GAA

Can you undelete Killybegs GAA,Dungloe GAA they where A7'd ,they have however won their county championships and would be considered notable as per WP:GAA Gnevin (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I want to make sure you intend to actually grow the article before I do so. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll grow the article beyond their current 1 or 2 lines Gnevin (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a deal. Just make it more than 3 or 4 lines. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can hold off , thanks. User talk:GlassCobra has user-ifed them for me see here. At least I know you've no objection to recreation Gnevin (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're back now if you want to work on them. I suspect they won't last long in their current state, but I linked to this discussion when I restored them in order to buy you some time. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Gnevin (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

I'm sorry, but this...

If you wish to cooperate in good faith going forward, I am happy to do so and welcome you to any and all discusisons. However, marking untitled archived sections with snide and denigrating POV commentary such as your edit, and edit summary, here are not welcome and are especially unbecoming a sysop. I trust we have an understanding. PetersV TALK 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

... was not harassment. Your inserting derisive commentary to title a discussion archive, however, certainly appears to qualify at the intended recipients' end. Please refrain from offering such nonconstructive personal opinion. I will take your leaving this on your talk page, and visible, as a sign of good faith, there is no need to respond further. PetersV TALK 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts today have been commendable, and you have my sincere apologies. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

Horneldinkrag

Thanks for fixing. I would assume it's the same guy that was stalking me from an IP over the weekend. I've got a theory on who he is, but I'll keep that quiet for now. P.S. He requested an unblock. Friends like that, though, I don't need. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement

Thanks for your note. I've responded here. Cheers, SlimVirgin 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Change New England School of Law Page?

Hiberniantears,

I do not understand why you have undone all of my painkstaking research. I have linked to the Law School Admission Council site, and to ABA law school data, which is the most honest and respected data available.

The career statistics for the school are extremely relevant, because when people are looking at a law school, their first question will always be "what kind of job can I get afterwards?"

Please explain why you made the reversion and then locked the page. Do you work for the law school?

Onion and Garlic Pizza Latenightpizza (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The page clearly needs some work, but you and NESLgrad09 have popped up in the last couple of days to add information to the article in a manner that appears to be a slow, low key effort to transform the page from an advertisement into an criticism... neither of which is what we're aiming to do here. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of NESLgrad09

I'm concerned about both the protection of New England School of Law and your blocking of Neslgrad09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while you are actively involved in editing of the article. While the editing of both NESLgrad09 and Latenightpizza leave much to be desired, the information they have added is generally referenced. I think it might be better to discuss these issues on the talk page of the article rather than to revert all contributions, call them vandalism, protect the page and block one of them. Fred Talk 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actively involved in editing the article. All my edits have been either rollbacks, or removal of weasel words... I assumed that the two editors were simply socks of each other given the general direction they tried to take the article, and there similar timing in appearance. I only applied the semi-protection because the appearance of Latenightpizza combined with my suspicion of socks made me believe that letting the article sit protected for a few days was a better use of everyone's time than simply hovering over the article rolling back every new user that started making the same tendentious edits. That said, it may have been a little hasty. I'll release the protection on the article, but given the comments of NESLgrad09 on his talk page today, I am inclined to follow my instincts and leave him blocked... ~~If you've run a CU on them and turned up nothing suspect, I'll be happy to release the block.~~ Hiberniantears (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser would not ordinarily be run on a minor matter such as this. At least not on my own initiative. And, should it turn out that Latenightpizza is a sock, it would still be a first offense by a newbie and not adequate grounds for an indefinite block. Fred Talk 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I released the block, and included some editing suggestions on NESLgrad09's talk page. I was probably a wee bit too hasty, and appreciate the review. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fred, do you honestly think this is a noob? Hiberniantears (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at his editing history. I looked at his editing, which is not that sophisticated. He's trying hard but has a lot to learn. Fred Talk 12:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the block. I am honestly not trying to vandalize the page. Nor am I a clone or "sock puppet" of Latenightpizza. I am merely trying to make the page more objective, remove unsubstantiated marketing language, and included relevant statistics. If any edits I make are in error or not objective in your view, than by all means, please contact me so we can discuss them. Just know that my intention is not to violate any polices, but rather just to prevent the article from reading as an advertisement for the school. Neslgrad09 (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm am not NESLgrad09, or a sock puppet of that person. (I'm Latenightpizza (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)). I am concerned with the practice of law schools editing their wikipedia pages into advertisements. I think that, when you're creating a page, you should be focused on the information most meaningful to the intended audience.Discussing some moot court victory in 2001 is misleading, and irrelevant (consider that eight other schools have won the "Jessup Best Brief" since then, that there are literally hundreds of other such competitions, and THAT is the best NESL can do?).

Law schools regularly buy ranking positions in real life, (See the Cooley Rankings) and I think they also try to protect their image on Misplaced Pages. I want to edit pages so that law school pages, and depending on my success doing that, other corporate pages are fairly represented.

I think if you look at the NESL page, and consider how horrid the employment statistics (<80% employed NINE months after graduation) are given the amount of money paid ($38.5K*3 = $115.5K!) you have to start thinking about fairness. That's a lower employment rate than the general population, and an extra thousand dollars a month in bills.

I spent four hours editing that page, to try and reflect the truth about the school. I used data the schools are required to submit to the American Bar Association, and data from the school's own site. Except for some information I gleaned from the ILRG, which seems very credible.

Finally, the page itself states that it reads like an advertisement! I edited the page to more appropriately reflect reality. I cannot understand the constant reversions to the original.

Digwuren, Krohn, etc.

The current AN and AN/I threads about this are pretty apalling to watch.

1. I post a report about Digwuren's talk page abuse and ask that an admin give him a warning to make him stop.

2. Five different editors (all Digwuren's friends) pop in and accuse me of blockshopping. Admin Piotrus says that he is "fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner," and proposes that I should be given "a preventative block." (Just when exactly did I harass Digwuren? Sorry, but I haven't done such thing.)

3. Krohn posts a comment, providing context for the general dispute. His last sentence is misunderstood as a threat. What he actually is saying is analogous to telling someone "if you publicly deny the holocaust in country X, you can get jailed according to the law." Where exactly is the threat in that? (Of course, it still would have been better if he had not said that.)

4. Some editors (including the mentioned five "friends") go to AN/I and demand a long block or a permanent ban for Krohn. (This, of course, is not blockshopping. Neither was demanding a block for me blockshopping. However, my original request for a warning to Digwuren naturally was, and I should get blocked for doing that.)

This just couldn't get any better. I can only conclude that:

1. If Digwuren is in breach of a policy, I must not report it. Otherwise I will get blocked.

2. Petri Krohn was correct when he said : Digwuren and his supporters have come across numerous generations of pro-Russian editors. However, in the end it has always been, and always will be, the pro-Russian ones that get permabanned.

Sorry, but I just had to complain somewhere. I dare not say another word at the boards, as I will probably only get blocked if I do that :) Offliner (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, this will be taken with a grain of salt as I am allegedly aligned with the nationalist camp. That said, your overactive defense of a pro-Russian position across a number of contentious articles (e.g, regarding South Ossetia) has been quite evident to me at least as has been your wont (my perception) to deal with edits you don't approve of by going after editors. I've managed to never file anything, except request once (and explicitly stating I was not block shopping) that an editor be given some advice. I was attacked and beset with a calumny of self-righteous invective that I've rarely witnessed. The moral is that the allegedly nationalist community has been under siege by personal attacks, smear campaigns, and block shopping for years. (For my part, I didn't even know what "block shopping" and "meat puppet" were until accused of such. It was a bitter lesson that where the Soviet legacy is concerned, WP is more about conflict than content.) We've seen this all before and (apparently) have little patience for any WP activity that doesn't stick to topics and reputable secondary sources to build articles on those topics.

I prefer reputable secondary sources—that keeps me to articles, though it's been difficult the last year to contribute much with family issues. Requests for administrative intervention against editors require no sources, only accusations. Arguments sans reputable secondary sources never end well—not a threat, just an observation from being at this since 2005. Your choice of editorial weapon is, of course, yours.

Lastly, your contention that only pro-Russian editors get perma-banned is not a reflection on the defense of Russian honor, it is a reflection of the tactics and weapons those editors each individually decided to use in the conflict over the portrayal of the Soviet legacy. In all those cases it was about editorial conduct, not about being pro-Russian or anti-Soviet. FYI, far more Baltic and Eastern European editors have left in plain disgust over the years, tired of the endless attacks on their integrity. (H., feel free to archive or remove after a few days, this seemed the most appropriate place to respond. I won't be taking up any more space on your talk page, if anyone is interested in the incident I cited I can probably go back and find diffs, it was a long time ago.) PetersV TALK 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Endless blockshopping

As a Russian editor, I do not think this has anything to do with ethnic/national issues. Just bare facts.

Offliner filed three false 3RR reports (one of them was about Russian editor Colchicum) - see this warning by William M. Connolley.
He made this comment to Tiptoety
He asked for a block from Nishkid64, and yes, he received it from Nakon.
He asked for a block at the ANI
He made a similar ANI comment at another occasion.
And he still believes that he never started baseless threads and complains here. This should stop.Biophys (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I filed three 3RR reports, one of which led to the blocking of User:Martintg: . The other two did not lead to a block. I'm not sure why they should be called "false reports" because of that.
Yes, I first asked Tiptoety's opinion on Digwuren's talk page abuse; he asked me to take the issue to WP:AN.
Yes. But, unfortunately, we both got blocked in that case . Deservedly, I guess.
This is where I took the issue after Tiptoety's request (he didn't have time to look at it himself.)
Not sure why this comment is "similar." Biophys had filed a sockpuppet report against me, but the Checkuser result was negative: . Perhaps this qualifies as "a false report" in Biophys' vocabulary as well? Luckily, Biophys has stopped making any kind of sockpuppet accusations against me after the negative Checkuser result - contrary to what I had feared (he had made multiple such accusations against User:Russavia earlier.)
I was responding to admin Piotrus' accusation about "continuous harassment of Digwuren", which I have not done. If anyone claims otherwise, please provide diffs. I don't even recall filing a single 3RR report about Digwuren. If the 3RR reports which did not lead to a block qualify as "false threads" - fine, you are entitled to having your own vocabulary.

Anything else? Offliner (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You still insist that you are right... Yes, I object you calling yourself "Pro-Russian". You do not represent Russian editors here. You do not represent "Russian POV". You only represent yourself and your POV, just like others. There are no conflicts between Russian and Baltic editors here. Do not invent such conflicts, please. Biophys (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages. I don't know what else to tell you. This is a voluntary online encyclopedia. Both of you are, in fact, contributing ZERO to this project. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, I think you're a pretty good administrator as you try to maintain a neutral perspective without favoritism to either party, but I'm not sure how much the previous statement is grounded in Offliner's actual editing history. I can certainly tell you that Offliner has contributed a lot to this encyclopedia, and only a fraction of his edits are even in the areas of dispute concerned here (he's really being hounded by the same pack of editors who regulalry contribute their share to the ANI disputes). Only those who take it upon themselves to dedicate their time here to attacking others and assaulting articles with POV on a full-time basis destroy the integrity of this project and contribute zero. As a relatively new editor to this sort of politicking, I find it strange that sometimes this can be the norm. With respect to Offliner's generous history of good-faith and constructive editing, please take a look at his edit history for yourself to see what I mean. Although this is a pretty nasty case involving the long-standing activity of a particular clique where few would want to be involved in the antagonisms, I think that this is a case where neutrality does not mean seeing things as only one shade of grey. Even here, Biophys has managed to attack legitimate concerns presented by Offliner with an attack–a retaliation for Offliner's expression of concern for a dispute with a completely different editor who, incidentally, happens to be an old-time battle ally of his (1). Such behavior is indeed intimidating. Fighting proxy-battles against Offliner on behalf of this battle-ally Digwuren with absolutely irrelevant insults, when all one's points have been addressed degrades things into a juvenile non-sequitur you-don't-speak-for-any-Russians-here attack. What kind of conclusion might one straightforwardly proceed to draw from something as brazen, hard-to-assume-good-faith, and off-color as that?

Personally, I do not think Offliner is the guilty party here. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe we should make assume bad faith conclusions about "proxy" warring et al. Don't take the response by an editorial community that has been attacked and slandered ad nauseum and leap to the conclusion they are conducting coordinated campaigns against specific individuals. Review the last 5 years of edits and see how many reputable Eastern European editors have been driven away by endless administrative attacks by the pro-Russian camp, and then opine on proxy warring. Offliner is just the latest in a long line seeking administrative relief to bolster injecting their POV into articles. Please feel free to discuss on my talk page, I don't want to litter here any further. PetersV TALK 18:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To you and Hiberniantears et al., I am unwatching this page as I have no time or appetite to get into allegations of bad faith, it's just spinning our wheels in mud with the inevitable messy results. If desired, please contact me via my talk or my Email, my identity is not a secret. PetersV TALK 18:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And more of the same traveling circus

Hiberniantears, you might be interested in taking note of how User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, and User:Martintg are now all ganging up on the veteran editor User:Viriditas at Talk:Human rights in the United States–all since Viriditas brought up a complaint against Mosedschurte, another pro-Baltic–anti-Soviet editor at the ANI. At what point does the iteration of this sort of process get sorted out as coordinated editing flat-out constituting WP:TEAM? –PasswordUsername (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a circus, I just don't think that all the acts involved recognize that they are, in fact, part of the circus, and not the audience. Misplaced Pages does not have policies in place that allow administrators to resolve issues like this on our own. There are a few ArbCom decisions which I think I could apply to some editors, but in no way would that be constructive, nor would it even come close to solving the larger issues since all it would do it unleash foaming-at-the-mouth zealots on whatever topic they feel my actions are designed to remove the truth from. In order for me to fix this, I really need the authority to block a whole bunch of people on both sides of the discussions, arguments, and running talk page battles. I don't have that authority, at least not without making my life hellish, and at the end of the day, I'm not willing to bend over backwards for a volunteer encyclopedia that doesn't want to give me the full set of tools to do my job. In the mean time, I'm just going to sit by quietly and await the results of ArbCom's decision on a Macedonia case which I think will make life easier for those of us interested in participating in an online volunteer encyclopedia. Short of better tools, I'm just playing whack-a-mole. To be honest, I would truly relish indefinitely blocking Digwuren and Martintg, but I wouldn't stop there as I can think of a tidy list of editors with whom they lock horns on a frequent basis who I would also indefinitely block. The simple fact of the matter is that this would just create even worse drama than what you all have managed to create to date. Regardless of your views, if your here to slap the crap out of one set of editors or another, or to valiantly stand in the breach and do combat, then you're here for all the wrong reasons, and don't have a clear understanding of just what an encyclopedia is. In a nutshell: I feel fully comfortable handing out at least a handful of blocks, but I suspect that the community would not be able to stay focused long enough to support me. Anything I do what just be a short term fix, and little more than palliative in nature. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do check up on edits of my peers. I did actually put my two cents in on the article as well, it's a complete unfocused mishmosh. Feel free to read my talk page comment there and determine whether my comments are in support of a WP:TEAM effort or a genuine effort to improve the scope and content of the article. Just because a community of editors shares similar interests or common sensibilities does not make a cabal or conspiracy. That requires suppression or misrepresentation of facts and reputable sources. The only reason I follow any of my peer's activities is because of the siege mentality that has been engendered by editors such as Offliner and now, apparently, PasswordUsername trolling on admin pages for sympathy. I did not make the circus, I was forced to become a participant to survive. That it is a circus implies nothing positive or negative regarding any particular editor's integrity (on either side, there are proponents of objectivity regarding the Soviet legacy whose position based on reputable sources I do respect).

Should I have responded differently here?

Hiberniantears, I take umbrage at your "whack-a-mole" validating comment to an editor who has clearly chosen sides in a conflict. If you can't be objective (or at least keep such comments to yourself), then you are only feeding the circus you despise. (But thanks for your comments on motives.)PetersV TALK 04:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack against me noted, Peters–why not try to behave? It's interesting how you're in the poor "besieged" party here when User:Digwuren, User:Martintg, User:Vecrumba, User:Miacek, and User:Colchicum edit "together" so...uninfrequently...and very often in tandem with similar participation from User:Mosedschurte, User:Radeksz, User:Biruitorul, and a number of other users who tend to pop up to join the company intermittently here and there–all of these invariably editing on a particular variety of articles, certainly much less regularly, but also almost exclusively. How is my edit taking sides? Why not read the damn talk page–am I being "partisan" by pointing out that Russophobia is a valid concept? All of my edits have been in good faith. To make it easy on you, I dare you to show me merely ONE instance of me inserting anything bad about the Baltic states and I'll give you a Barnstar of your choosing, mate. Chill out and get some perspective.

Taking one's own advice about trolling Admin pages made in regard to others would always be a good prescription for oneself. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As for 'feeling besieged' by users with so different ethnic background, world-view and wiki-POV, I'd say one first has to look into mirror, so as to get a grasp, why so various people happen to be on one side of the barricade, opposing himself --Miacek (t) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Miacek, how nice of you to join us. Real life calls me back right now, but we'll continue our discussion of your insistent insertion of fringe conspiracy-theorist-Holocaust denier Oleg Platonov into Occupation of the Baltic states as a "Russian perspective" on Estonian history when I get back–and we'll certainly be getting some fresh input.

Stanislav Chernichenko, by the way, isn't a historian as you describe him in the article–maybe read your own source. Thanks for your comments. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How nice of you to have mentioned me. You surely understand what Hiberniantears have said: a whole bunch of people on both sides of the discussions, arguments, and running talk page battles. I can only guess whether this includes you, but it is getting more and more likely. The first sign of a battleground mentality is that one feels there are sides and parties, pro-whatever and anti-whatever users and articles. Well, it may be interesting to look at what the other travelling circus has been doing recently: . Not good. Colchicum (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no reverts after you submitted your own material, so your own supposition here is kind of wrong. Take a look at the time-stamps.

Be careful with those accusations. And until soon! –PasswordUsername (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername—"Personal attack against me noted, Peters – why not try to behave?"?? I am not the one attempting to settle editorial conflict by engaging admins instead of bringing reputable sources to the table and engaging editors on article talk pages in a respectful and collegial manner. Apologies to Hiberniantears for feeding the animals. I've reached out to you elsewhere, your course of action is your choice. PetersV TALK 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys... you're not really persuading me with this thread to have any level of restored hope that any article on any topic on the Eurasian landmass has even a shred of credibility. You all pretty clearly hate each other, and whether you want to accept it or not, you're all traveling in packs, regardless of what you think of those with whom you share your pack. Here is your challenge: If each of you can go two weeks without once editing any article that has anything to do with any topic even remotely related to anything in Europe or Asia, I will begin to regard you as inspired contributors. I strongly encourage you to take a look at Dragon (spacecraft) or DIRECT. If you could focus your energies into expanding those articles with the volumes of information and sources you bring to you chosen battlefield, then I think the encyclopedia will benefit greatly, and the private space program will at last take off beyond sub-orbital puddle jumpers. You have your challenge, gentlemen. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hiberniantears, I don't "hate" anybody. I have had cordial—though admittedly not collegial—relationships with even paid propaganda pushers. I only ask for scholarly sources fairly represented. You're free to think differently, of course. Your challenge might be an issue, I've probably spent $2,000 on sources as a direct result of WP involvement over the past few years—I make it a point of reading at least one or two of the "definitive" texts on a topic before involving myself. It would take at least two weeks just to familiarize myself with a topic with which I don't have involvement or experience, not to mention a current lack of disposable income. Please don't make me have to return again to defend myself against conclusions regarding my emotional state which are both inappropriate and incorrect. PetersV TALK 03:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Peters, this isn't really directed at you (honestly). However, the challenge is more an effort to see if any of you can possibly go two weeks without editing on any of the varied articles in question. I'm pretty confident that you can do it. I'm almost certain that many of the others can't. Two weeks, editing and familiarizing yourselves with articles you have little to no experience working with. For the two topics at hand, many sources are available for free online because of the very nature of the article subjects. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I read through both articles, they don't appear to be that lacking of information unless there's something you're aware of. The main issue is that one has gotten rather long. P.S. Sorry, just reverted an anon edit contending Transnistria's non-hammer and sickle flag is the "civil" flag; it is, in fact, any non-official use which can be in any shape/size for non-commercial purposes per the constitution; there is no definition of a "civil" versus "official" flag, there is only one flag, with hammer and sickle. Alas. PetersV TALK 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I give you credit for trying, but like I said, this isn't really directed at you, so much as the rest of the crowd. I'd really be knocked on my hind quarters if Digwuren, Russavia, Martintg, Offliner, and others could spend two weeks editing articles not related to anything they have ever found themselves disputing. If Dragon or DIRECT are too American-centric, I also can open the challenge to include Russian, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian space programs, along with any involvement in European Space Agency... however, editors may not discuss the history of any of these space programs as they relate to the space program of the Soviet Union. Personally, I happen to know that DIRECT is a very incomplete article at the moment given the turmoil in the US space program and the current review of human spaceflight under the Obama administration. Likewise, SpaceX has proceeded with development of the Dragon and Falcon 9 launch system considerably beyond the point detailed in the articles. Likewise, Dragon is likely to have an increased role in whatever revisions the Obama Administration makes. I know this because I found all the sources online... but I'm not touching these articles because I think they present a good opportunity to help a number of editors who appear to be lacking a proper outlet to grow in their Misplaced Pages experience. Misplaced Pages isn't about defending an article or topic, and it certainly isn't about only working on one thing. Rather, we're about learning and growth, and while choosing to focus on one narrow topic may seem a good way of helping others grow by learning about something near and dear to your heart, you all must expand your horizons a bit and try to learn beyond your comfort zone a bit. Not so much because I want you to be more competitive should you find yourselves on Jeopardy one day, but because challenging yourselves on articles outside your comfort zone inevitably makes you better editors. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you've mentioned DIRECT is lacking... Also, I really do have to stress that from my interactions with Baltic and Eastern European editors I respect, their approach is not any different from what you suggest or that I did, for example, in relation to Transnistria. Why I was interested (Russian Baltic OMON forces who killed freedom demonstrators transplanted en masse to Transnistria, knowing not much else about it) had no bearing on whether or not I would approach the topic from a POV-pushing perspective or not—I read Charles King's Moldova and Charles Upson Clark's works on Bessarabia and Roumania, all considered seminal works, before ever offering a word. Remember that those contending Soviet occupation are constantly challenged for sources and produce them, while those contending otherwise have only the empty pronouncements, and now edicts protecting the "truth", of Russian politicians and military commanders. And so, consider whether you consider Russia moving toward criminalization of criticism of the Soviet past:

reanimating Stalin, or
attempting to achieve a "balance" of views with respect to the postive aspects of Soviet history, particularly protecting the memory of those who died to rid the USSR of an invader (I take nothing away from those defending their homeland; I would also note more than 300,000 casualties just trying to retake the Courland pocket and more than 100,000 dead trying to retake the Baltics even by Soviet estimates)

IMHO, the best thing Russia could do to honor the memory of its fallen is to admit to the USSRs (NOT Russia's) occupations, particularly of the Baltics (and attone for its attack on Finland for failing to sign a pact of "mutual assistance). That will, once and for all, separate the ultimate sacrifices of those who died fighting Nazism from the acts of aggression and occupation which came both before and after those sacrifices. Until that separation occurs, Soviet aggression and occupation will continue to besmirch those memories. PetersV TALK 15:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't address the fact that this project would be better off without the likes of Digwuren, Martintg, and Russavia, or that our articles on science are far less attended to than the catastrophes that are our history related articles. Although given the inanity that is the interactions between Russian and Baltic editors (or Russians and everyone else, or Greeks and Turks, or Irish and Brits, or Turks and Arabs, or Arabs and Israelis, or PRC and ROC, or Republicans and Democrats), perhaps the last thing we need is people actually taking me up on my challenge... although a cursory perusal of Intelligent Design does support the theory that no corner of Misplaced Pages is safe, and that an encyclopedia open to everyone is precisely the worst possible way to go about creating an encyclopedia. *sigh* Hiberniantears (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are way off beam here, as usual. It never was an issue between Russian and Baltic editors, but between those who support the Soviet line and those who don't. In case you haven't noticed, that admin who moved Occupation of the Baltic states back to the original title is Russian. Russavia and myself are from Australia. One of the most strident anti-Estonian advocates in Misplaced Pages, User:Petri Krohn, is from Finland. My time is limited due to family commitments, I make no apology for mostly editing Baltic related articles, because I enjoy it and the region fascinates me. --Martintg (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian/Baltic, Soviet POV/Non-Soviet POV, same difference. Yes, that magical "Australian" water sure has a stunning ability to transform ordinary Aussies into strident, obstinate Cold Warriors on Misplaced Pages! Hiberniantears (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever "Soviet POV" there is (I have yet to see it personally), the issue is hardly anything of the sort. "It never was an issue between Russian and Baltic editors, but between those who support the Soviet line and those who don't," PetersV and Martintg will claim–yet we have the same editors going for a delete of Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia and denying the existence of Russophobia as a coherent phenomenon at Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment.

That seems to me pretty revealing–I dare say. Hardly an issue of "Soviet POV" as far as I'm seeing it. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How would you know Frank, you have only been editing since April 2009. Unfortunately there is a small group of editors attempting to turn an issue of interpretation of the Soviet legacy into some kind of ethnic battleground. Russians were the first to suffer under Soviet rule. Fortunately one member of this group, User:Petri Krohn recently received a year long ban for this kind of activity. --Martintg (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unfortunately there is a small group of editors attempting to turn an issue of interpretation of the Soviet legacy into some kind of ethnic battleground."

Undoubtedly, Martin! PasswordUsername (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now there's an article that I imagine will make me run naked screaming down the street. Don't *sigh*, there's always tomorrow. PetersV TALK 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel a breeze, and not in a good way. PetersV TALK 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) To Martintg's comments, the increasing equating of Russia's stature today with Soviet empire and the sanctifying of the Great Patriotic War in particular—one of the largest and most elaborate monuments to it has been built after the fall of the USSR{—makes it all the more urgent that where the Baltics are concerned, the world knows that Stalin invaded first. That is why the Baltics are different, that is why they are always under attack by Russia—I just read another recent EU document where Russia complains about the "rise of Nazism" in Latvia. It's not an information war I started, but as long as it exists, it will of necessity—not of choice—take priority over other WP activities. As long as Russia glorifies the USSR, it continues the "Cold War." If anyone believes there isn't a real information war out there (complete with paid propagandists defending Russian insterests on Misplaced Pages) they are sadly mistaken. PetersV TALK 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To PasswordUsername, please, all I have stated is that one cannot say Russophobia as a group phenomenon has existed for hundreds of years without scholarly sources. That the word "fear of a Russian" exists says nothing about a group phenomenon. When a word was first used or appeared in a dictionary characterizes only the fear, not the group phenomenon. Don't mischaracterize my position (simply stating what we can contend based on a dictionary entry versus reputable scholarship regarding a phenomenon) to suit your rhetoric.

I should also mention that I have no issue telling apart "Russian" from "Soviet". It's unfortunate the same apparently can't be said for the current Russian administration, which also can't tell anti-Soviet apart from Nazi, based on their latest EU testmony. PetersV TALK 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Completing the circle, as it turns out, the article in question is rather lacking in some basics and focuses too much on apocrypha for content (individual incidents, quotes of individuals, et al.). Now I don't know Viriditas from Adam, but they have decided that because I showed up looking to see what other things editors were working on, I'm their enemy and have been accusing me of stating things which I have not said and of motivations which have absolutely nothing to do with me, not to mention the ubiquitous old saw of meat puppet. I did not create the current non-collegial atmosphere there and I don't care about its origins. However, I won't stand for their current conduct, I don't care how "veteran" they are. Spewing "put up or shut up" multiple times on an article talk page is not constructive. I expect better conduct from a "veteran" editor. PetersV TALK 16:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Responding due to notification about this discussion) PetersV, I am curious, what other human rights-related articles have you edited in the past? You appear to have just "showed up" to help support Mosedschurte, not to improve the article. Am I wrong? Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? You're welcome to discuss it here, but I'm not sure what you're both referring to... Hiberniantears (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the warm welcome. As you can see from the link in my comment, I was notified of this discussion on my talk. We are probably all talking about different aspects of the same problem. In my case, I am referring to the "team" PasswordUsername refers to in his initial comment to this thread. IMO, PetersV (User:Vecrumba) is one "member" of this team who simply appeared one day on Talk:Human rights in the United States (and the main article) to support Mosedschurte. From what I can tell (although evidence is scanty at this point), Mosedschurte engaged in a backchannel canvassing campaign during an RFC on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To the question, my involvement with Mosedschurte is quite recent, I was simply looking to see what else he has been working on—one of the ways I get to know editors I haven't dealt with before is to leaf through their areas of WP interest. As it so happens, I've done considerable research on human rights in the Baltic states (that being a bone of contention with Russia and Russophone activists), so am quite familiar with various international aspects. I have had no contact whatsoever with Mosedschurte regarding the article in question. We really do need to stop assuming the worst and reacting with cudgels and not collegiality. We need to break the cycle of accusation and a priori assumptions of back-room conspiracy. I would hope Viriditas views my most recent edits and comments on the article in question as positive. Also, as the outgrowth of an article nominated for deletion, I sat down to add some material to (the very recently created as a result) Human rights in Estonia. I'm looking at this line of inquiry, as I've stated, as an opportunity to get away from a WP:BATTLEGROUND, not to jump into another one. PetersV TALK 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I thought my latest suggestion on the RfC represents a valid and workable compromise. Does it suck up to anyone's position in particular? No. PetersV TALK 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the edits, and I think it is worth assuming good faith with Peters (Vecrumba) here. He's making good additions to the article, and while he is definitely associated with a clique of editors as noted above, that clique isn't acting maliciously here. As he notes just above, he follows certain editors around by checking out their contributions, and if something piques his interest, he jumps in. I do this all the time, and it is a perfectly good way to find some interesting areas in which to expand your editing. So there is a clique, but this particular one is not quite a strongly organized as others. While there are editors in this clique who do coordinate quite strongly with each other to the detriment of the project, Peters is not one of the problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to keep an open mind and possibly even make that leap of faith, but looking at some of the articles he has contributed to have me concerned. For example, he is one of the primary contributors to Occupation of the Baltic states. Look at the page history to see which editors are active in that article. I believe this clique is strongly organized and they have deliberately inserted themselves into Human rights in the United States, and it is not a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: "From what I can tell (although evidence is scanty at this point), Mosedschurte engaged in a backchannel canvassing campaign during an RFC on the talk page."

"Scanty" = "I made it up and posted it on some editor's talk page". And you've got to be kidding me re that RfC. Try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors.

Viriditas: "Look at the page history to see which editors are active in that article."

Oh boy, you happen to be posting on the Talk Page of an editor that implemented (for at least some time) the most significant changes in that article.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: "I believe this clique is strongly organized and they have deliberately inserted themselves into Human rights in the United States, and it is not a coincidence."

Oh my, perhaps this was right after their evil conspiracy to fake the Apollo moon landings and cover up McCartney's death. Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors.

Viriditas: "I have assume good faith in your complete and all abiding ignorance" (last edit made on his talk page to another editor)

Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you disputing the indisputable fact that the same group of editors in this page history, a page where Vecrumba is one of the primary contributors, involves the exact same group of editors who have recently showed up to to manipulate the outcome of an RFC on Human rights in the United States? I don't understand, are you saying it is a coincidence that you, Mosedschurte, Martintg, Digwuren, Biophys, Vecrumba, and Radeksz all just happened to show up at the same time on Talk:Human rights in the United States? Also, how do you explain the fact that three of these users, Vecrumba, Digwuren, and Radeksz, intentionally obscure their actual user names, making it difficult to see these relationships? Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas: "group of editors who have recently showed up to to manipulate the outcome of an RFC on Human rights in the United States?"

"Manipulate the RfC"? Commenting in an RfC is "manipulating" it? A simply unbelievable take from the only editor that uncategorically actually deleted people's Talk Page comments repeatedly in that RfC.
Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors. All of these accusations blatantly violate WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civil.

User:Viriditas: "Also, how do you explain the fact that three of these users, Vecrumba, Digwuren, and Radeksz, intentionally obscure their actual user names, making it difficult to see these relationships?"

Some of these charges about other editors are so ridiculous that even subjecting them to the laugh test would be a waste of time. Vecrumba, like the others, simply uses the built-in Misplaced Pages WP:Piped link feature to show the much easier to remember "PeterV" instead of "Vecrumba" (which may be his last name, but I don't know). This in no non-laughable regard "intentionally obsur their actual user names". Their actual full user names appear in every edit history and with every click of their user names. Several Misplaced Pages administrators use WP:Piped link as well.
Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors. All of these accusations blatantly violate WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civil.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

An observation that the same editors are moving from article to article like a pack of wild wolves, is not a "false accusation". Furthermore, I am not the only one to observe your behavior, and the tag team behavior your group is engaging in is well-supported by considerable evidence. Administrator action may be required in the future. The piped links which serve to confuse the actual user name contribute to the confusion. I would not have even noticed the tag teaming if I had not personally visited the user pages, only to discover that the screen names in the signature were different than the registered user names - names that show up in conjunction with your own. This is a serious problem, and it will be dealt with. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: "An observation that the same editors are moving from article to article like a pack of wild wolves, is not a "false accusation". Furthermore, I am not the only one to observe your behavior"

These accusations get more ridiculous by the minute. In my entire time at Misplaced Pages, I've probably edited (at least within the same day or so so I would know it), maybe 3-4 articles that Vecrumba has edited.
Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors. All of these accusations blatantly violate WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civil.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not false, true, and there's enough evidence showing the pattern across multiple articles. You can continue to deny it all you want. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Me: "These accusations get more ridiculous by the minute. In my entire time at Misplaced Pages, I've probably edited (at least within the same day or so so I would know it), maybe 3-4 articles that Vecrumba has edited. Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors."

User:Viriditas: "Not false, true, and there's enough evidence showing the pattern across multiple articles. You can continue to deny it all you want."

Unreal. Not that I'm surprised at yet another accusation by you of a Misplaced Pages editor. In my entire time at Misplaced Pages, exactly which 5+ articles have I edited within 24 hours of Vecrumba? In fact, besides Eastern Bloc, Occupation of the Baltic States and maybe Human Rights in the United States, I'm not sure there are any. He mostly sticks to Baltic topics with most of any overlap with me being when I've edited a tiny handful of Baltic-related articles involving mostly 1940s-50s history. And even had we simultaneously edited many (even 50+, which we most certainly haven't) historical articles, who cares, and how does this prove some ridiculous conspiracy?
Again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors. All of these accusations blatantly violate WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civil.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas: "The piped links which serve to confuse the actual user name contribute to the confusion. I would not have even noticed the tag teaming if I had not personally visited the user pages, only to discover that the screen names in the signature were different than the registered user names - names that show up in conjunction with your own. This is a serious problem, and it will be dealt with."

So now Vecrumba and others are purportedly going to "be dealt with" for simply using the WP:Piped link feature in their signatures? This threat well crosses the border of ridiculousness.
I left notice of your threat on Vecrumba's talk page. Perhaps Radeksz and Digwuren should also be informed.
And again, try to minimize the attacks and false accusations re other Misplaced Pages editors. All of these accusations blatantly violate WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civil. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be having a discussion with yourself. You have not answered any of my questions, nor have you ever addressed my issues with your edits on the respective talk pages. As usual, you have distorted every word I have said in order to further your agenda. I feel sorry for you. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As an American, I'm actually quite interested in the topic of how an article regarding the US approach to human rights would develop. Instead of engaging in a circular argument, might I make the following request: Viriditas and Mosedschurte, in the space immediately beneath this comment, please give me no more than 100 words each stating your position on what is missing, or should be removed from the Human rights in the United States article. I could go there and figure it out, but there is a great deal of white noise at this point, and a refresher would help. If others could refrain from responding to these two paragraphs from Viriditas and Mosedschurte, I would greatly appreciate it. As for the point about using sigs that obscure one's user name, I personally find it annoying as hell, but it is entirely allowed on Misplaced Pages. Just look at at the talk page for RfA to get a view of some of the absurd sigs used by admins. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaving "space below" (above) clear for requested response

I was not aware that shorthand for my user name was some violation. My signature includes a link to my talk page, so it's not difficult to check my Misplaced Pages user name, and I list my past shorthand names on my user page. Traveling like a "pack of wolves?" Intentionally obscuring? I'm sorry, I thought (my thanks to Hiberniantears) that based on that last exchange above and (I thought) a start on contributions on Human rights in the United States in areas I had done some reading (international) I had put my initial unplasantness with Viriditas behind us. Clearly I was wrong. I guard my integrity jealously. I'm in no mood to tolerate abusive assumption of bad faith. I'm truly sorry for whatever experiences Viriditas has had on the article prior that has engendered this sort of behavior--I have seen notes to Viriditas thanking him for "defense" of the article so I can assume there has been some unpleasantness. I won't, however, be held hostage to and be tarred by another editor's seige mentality. PetersV TALK 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For myself, the article needs beefing up in international law. I've made my position clear on expansion (very limited beyond domestic borders). Enough said. PetersV TALK 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A (not particularly) random sample of possible examples of a circus show

Note the abundance of POV forks...

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.

PasswordUsername (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Estonian sentiment
Anti-Russian sentiment
Anton Salonen
Communist-era sources
Communist terrorism
Denial of the Holodomor
Eastern Bloc
Estonia in World War II
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic
Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings
Falsification of history
Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Herman Simm
Historical Truth Commission
History of Russians in Estonia
Human rights in Estonia
Human rights in the United States
Intermovement
Internet police
Internet operations by Russian secret police
List of deaths related to the Russian apartment bombings
List of Eastern Bloc defectors
Mark Sirők
Mikheyev v. Russia
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Neo-Stalinism
Occupation of the Baltic states
Paul A. Goble
Post-Soviet Russia
Putinism
Putinjugend
Putinland
Putin's Russia
Russian apartment bombings
Russian influence operations in Estonia
Siberian Misplaced Pages
Soviet deportations from Estonia
Soviet-German relations before 1941
Soviet historiography
Soviet occupations
Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States
Soviet War memorial (Treptower Park)
Terrorism by the Soviet Union
Theories of the Russian apartment bombings
The Soviet Story
Timeline of antisemitism
Victory Day (May 9)
Vladimir Hutt
Web Brigades
Yestonians
Young Guard of United Russia

And one very old-time hint as to the source of the mysteriousness of it all: WP:DIGWUREN.

Oh please. PetersV TALK 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So...umm...uhh...you guys edit independently? These are just coincidences, note the AGF title–possible examples. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You have an accusation, make it. I'm tired of the cheeky denigrating innuendo. PetersV TALK 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering about the patterns here. Certain things are characteristic of tag teams, so the way to deal with them is to first observe the patterns closely. It might be acceptable to offer an opinion that proper development of an article seems to be impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity, rather than as accusations against specific editors such as yourself. Although it is generally not necessary to use the term "tag teaming" in order to deal with a dispute, it makes for an effective shorthand when describing the situation. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most probably we edit independently. E.g. my watchlist consists of 8,804 pages, and I regularly watch contributions by many of the "circus show". My e-mail is disabled on my page, and there is no way to contact me in secret. And one very old-time hint as to the source of the mysteriousness of it all: Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sander Säde/WPEarticles. This is all perfectly legitimate. I am surprised that you are pissed off so much by your recent block for edit-warring. Colchicum (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I think your links are worth examining, especially as to the behavior of Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) from the other travelling circus. Colchicum (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Keen observation there, Colch–perhaps editors who attack Russians manage to often run into them? It's fun to note how many times Russavia's reasonable editing and AfD nominations of POV forks are massively attacked in the above. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fun to note that Russavia's reasonable editing is not universally considered reasonable, no? I am Russian, yet I am attacked in the above mostly by the likes of Russavia. This has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality. With the political spectrum maybe. I have always wondered why the Western extreme left tend to side with pro-Kremlin statists, who don't give a damn about ideology. Colchicum (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am American and I see Russavia's editing as legitimate–although the apparent pattern of just oh-so-improbably running into users with thousands of pages on their watchlist is a tee bit tragicomical.

The tendency by some users to revisit the same articles speaks for itself, no? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One editor's reasonableness is another's over the top POV. That is why we prefer reputable secondary sources. Perhaps PasswordUsername has a source supporting the declaration issued by the Russian Duma that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law. I've been asking for one now for several years. Perhaps fresh editorial blood has access to fresh sources? Thanks in advance from a fellow American! PetersV TALK 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? This isn't about your POV or its truth or error. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I say anything about my POV? I just thought you might have come across reputable sources others haven't regarding a rather fundamental question. PetersV TALK 21:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you did say something about your POV. I don't have any sources–just the above links. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

??? I'm not talking about the compendium of links. I asked you a simple question about whether you were aware of a reputable source supporting a particular declaration by a particular legislative body. My POV is irrelevant. What matters is reputable secondary sources, it makes things so much easier. PetersV TALK 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) User:Vecrumba: "You have an accusation, make it. I'm tired of the cheeky denigrating innuendo."

Rather, PasswordUsername has and is spending amusingly large amounts of time compiling and adding to a list above where you and other editors working on eastern European articles make comments on, get ready for this, eastern European article talk pages!!! Seriously.
Next up will be a list of each time you and/or another editor have used the word "Estonia" in Talk page comments. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning to Vecrumba

User:Vecrumba: "Oh please."

You forgot to end with an evil bottom-lit laugh as a member of the grand planning commission. The packing of this clowncar of conspiracy theories gets more amusing by the minute. I can't remember, was it you or Biophys that booked the studio to simulate Armstrong's moon landing? I think it was Martintg who killed and replaced McCartney. And don't you dare, egads, comment on Talk pages or edit articles, as User:PasswordUsername will chronicle each such instance and list them on some other editor's talk page!!!!
But note the warning that User:Viriditas claims that a tool used in your conspiratorial activities is your use of WP:Piped links in your signature appearance, which " intentionally obscures your actual user name" and, thus, you "will be dealt with."
Finally, note that the conspiracy, or perhaps just one secret sect, is, per User:Viriditas, "moving from article to article like a pack of wild wolves", he is "not the only one to observe your behavior", and "Administrator action may be required" for such Talk page comments and article edits.
And, of course, none of these accusations in any way violates WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civil. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would note that all Viriditas had to do was to talk to me on my talk page which he has not done. My identity is not a secret. I use my real name, unlike "Viriditas", so exactly who is it that is hiding their identity from whom by not using their real name and why? See how easy it is to call an editor's integrity into question? How easily we label editors as enemies and then act in a manner which can only fulfill our expectations. If someone attacks me, ah, yes, I should be kind to them for by doing so it will be like heaping burning coals upon their heads. If only this were a Biblical and not encyclopedic struggle. PetersV TALK 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood me. I never questioned your identity. I questioned why you weren't using your actual user name. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Prior I was signing my full name for a very long time, which I then simply shortened to PētersV. I was, quite frankly, amazed that anyone would take exception, as I see it done all the time, and it's not like it's stil not my name, just abbreviated. I'm quite content to chalk your side of this unfortunate confrontation to some poor assumptions based on circumstances which you erroneously took to indicate bad faith. Time to move on, yes? ...

...(od) Moving on to PasswordUsername. I've requested on your talk page you cease and desist lodging accusations against me behind my back on admin and user (talk) pages, the latest at Pjoef's. I trust my request is clear and unambiguous. PetersV TALK 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up

for your information: I've just blocked User:Pristinick as the next shuppsock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I'd been watching him as well for the past day or so. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry Hibernian tears. Still asleep! And now I am back to trying.--VS 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That was hilarious. Nice one! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hola

As a heads-up, I wanted to let you know that there might be continuing drama over at New England School of Law. Looks like you might have some experience with both Latenightpizza and Neslgrad09. All their edits look NESL-related, but I think I've kept things fairly contained for now. It so far just seems to be a lot of Misplaced Pages-ignorance, and I tend to be very by-the-book anyway. There's another user started contributing, too. Anyhow, just wanted to keep you apprised. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Those two editors are head scratchers to me... I actually blocked Neslgrad09 indefinitely when it appeared he was focused on just adding negative material to the NESL article (the article did need some balance though). User:Fred Bauder encouraged me to take another look at it, so I removed the block, but I'm still not sure if it is just a new editor trying to learn the ropes, or someone who knows how to pretend as much. I'll try to keep an eye on things this week. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, now I'm pegged as personally attacking Neslgrad09 (). When this was added to my talk page, this had been my "most recent revision". I'm starting to wonder, too, if Latenightpizza and Neslgrad09 are the same. They both appear to be almost entirely for editing New England School of Law, and arguing with anyone else who gets involved (, , ). The former has definitely accused editors of being "employed by law schools" and told me that I don't know what I'm talking about as it relates to law school information. I told said editor to read up on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The latter freaked out when I tried to bring the article inline with WP:UNIGUIDE, and it seemed to be going well until this most recent debacle. I could use another set of eyes to let me know if I could've done a better job at Talk:New_England_School_of_Law. --King of the Arverni (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, how do I go about addressing the fact that one user is clearly editing for "prospective students and employers" and another has claimed that I've personally attacked him/her when I think it's totally bogus? Please let me know if you see anything at Talk:New England School of Law that might imply that I've personally attacked anyone, because I'm at a loss. I actually thought I was being particularly nice and especially helpful to Neslgrad09, and was SO happy that the editor was willing to discuss.... but something seems to have changed. After reading through, I'm even more serious curious about the account concerns. Neslgrad09 was totally fine with me until Latenightpizza came on the scene and I told him/her that commenting on contributors isn't cool. After that, Latenightpizza disappeared and Neslgrad09 returned to say that I'd personally attacked him/her and said "see above". As I've said (and hopefully you can see on the talk page itself), I'm pretty sure I never commented on Neslgrad09 as an individual, so either 1) I'm just wrong because I did comment on the contributor rather than the content, 2) Neslgrad09 is making wild and baseless accusations for no apparent reason, or 3) Neslgrad09 is offended that I used the term "personal attack" in reference to Latenightpizza's comments about editors (myself included, at that point, as that seems to be Latenightpizza's M.O.) because they're one and the same. I've had run-ins before where the disruptive editor just picks up whatever my reasons are (UNIGUIDE, VERIFY, NPA, &c.) and uses them him/herself incorrectly and out of context to edit war, so that could be it, too. I just don't know how to deal with this stuff in the "official" sense; I only know how to ask others' opinions. BTW, I asked for some opinions on the article over at WP:UNI, especially in light of a recent Latenightpizza edit that ignored the talk page and UNIGUIDE altogether in order to implement a version that's more geared toward "prospective law students and employers". Yowzer. --King of the Arverni (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally, as you haven't done anything wrong. I'm a little swamped today, but feel free to report those two editors to checkuser, as it seems fairly likely to me that they are sockpuppets. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to do that. What if they aren't, though? I don't want to accuse people of being sockpuppets who aren't. Don't we need proof? --King of the Arverni (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect them to be socks based on the timing of their appearance, the appearance of a common purpose, as well as commentary that suggests they are more experienced in editing Misplaced Pages than they appear. As I recall, Latenightpizza only showed up after I reverted Neslgrad09 for vandalism a couple of times. It struck me as off that an editor who's name suggests they are a recent grad of the school would be fixated on making edits which are generally negative to the school itself. That the edits introduced negative facts was not a problem in and of itself, since the article was skewed to being a PR piece for the school. That said, I need a bit more time to really sit down and focus on all the edits they've been making. My Misplaced Pages activity has come in fits and bursts this week, so you're welcome to leave the task to me if you don't mind it taking a few days. Alternatively, you could also take the article or the two editors themselves to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, and just follow the directions there. I'm a bit reluctant to offer more than commentary on this one only because my use of admin tools with Neslgrad09 was called into question by User:Fred Bauder. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I figured I might as well clarify two things: 1) Latenightpizza is not a 'Sockpuppet' of me--I have no sockpuppet, and really have no idea who he or she is; 2) I readily admit some of the early, early changes I made to the page did not fall in line with relevant Wiki guidelines, but once the guidelines were explained to me, I believe that almost all of my recent edits have been made in good faith, based on the rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages. I encourage you to review my recent edits of the page if you still believe I am engaging in improper conduct. Thanks. Neslgrad09 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, it's not an interruption. Saying that one isn't a sockpuppet, however, is just silly. If there was evidence that someone was lying to you but said "I'm not lying," would you just take them at their word? Hiberniantears, I'd love for you to follow up on this one, so that my brain can focus on real-world matters, and there's enough bipolar disorder and illogic here that I'm going to wait until the dust settles before I try once more to make sure the article meets WP:UNIGUIDE. Don't worry feel bad about only offering commentary; that's actually what I'd appreciate most right now -- good commentary. I'm always sad when anyone, myself included, seeks a third opinion and the third party doesn't read closely (the initial issues were WP:V and WP:NPOV, but the third opinion didn't pick up on those). Now it's really just devolved into violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TALK, perhaps with some WP:SPA, WP:COI, and WP:SOCK mixed in. Since the conversation shifts so quickly from content to contributor, misleading statements and all, this is far more about behavior than it is about content now. I just don't have enough experience with these issues to know the procedure on how to handle Wikiquette issues. --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Averniking, the third opinion request on the page has been resolved, yet you continue to personally attack me by insinuating I have some sort of mental defect. Please stop. I have no idea why you feel the need to resort to such petty character attacks. I think your issue should be with others you have encountered on the page, if at anyone at all. I am merely here trying to make contributions to the encyclopedia, not defend myself against every baseless accusation you decide to throw my way. Neslgrad09 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)