Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:45, 10 September 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

notes to self - nothing to see here

• User_talk:Ezhiki/2008#Hymn_of_the_RF
• User_talk:Ezhiki/2008#WP:RUSSIA_template

FYI

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

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

More information please?

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

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

Did Maloney get his facts wrong?

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

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

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

If you can't supply some information to counter Mr Maloney, I see no reason not to revert back to the edit with the supporting reference.

I'm looking forward to your reply, particularly it you can answer all three of my questions with useful supporting information.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maloney is wrong, absolutely wrong. I really hate it when so-called journalists put something to print without doing a simple search. These days, there's a marvellous thing called the internet which would have made Maloney's job much, much easier to do. If Maloney had of done such a search, he would have found Ivanov's bio on the Belarus National Assembly website which gives the date of birth. Hope this helps. --Russavia 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. (And personally, I don't think Ivanov 1955 looks anything much like Ivanov 1948, either ... )

Have you been able to find ANYTHING about Ivanov 1948?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Russian government photographs

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

I do most of the uploading of photos from the Kremlin website (kremlin.ru) it seems, but I can't find a photo of Dmitriyenko on there as yet. When Medvedev travels to Murmansk Oblast again, this will be the best time to get it. Other than this, we would have to contact the Murmansk Oblast authorities and ask for permission to use their photographic materials under a commons compatible licence. Dunno if you are interested in doing that side of things? --Russavia 12:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remembered seeing you around the wiki in various places. I haven't managed to find much written about him, except for a few briefings in Izvestia, so I don't know how much time I will spend on the article now. There probably isn't even enough for a DYK. Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with OTRS. Are you willing to do the legwork? Ottre 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cats

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

For fucks sake Weasel, can't you do anything for me anymore? Don't make me beg! Right?!? --Russavia 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In actual fact, I was gonna contact you about that. Should be there a single category? Or two? You seem to be the expert here on this side of things, so I'll get you to decide how to categorise them, eh? --Russavia 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

<watching a big dump of boring hit the fan...> I guess I could do it myself... Gee, I only asked that you do it for me (as usual), is all... Are you busy or something? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:45, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Busy? I dunno...doesn't that big f'ing box at the top of my talk page say anything to you? OK, I realise it only says I may not respond quickly to respond to questions, but the general gist of the box should be pretty damned clear, wouldn't you say? --Russavia 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Check this out... Category:Administrative divisions of federal subjects of Russia created in 2007 by yourself. Shouldn't this really be located at Category:Administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia -- better English innit? --Russavia 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember this one now. Someone then argued that "better English" should be damned in cat names for the sake of brevity. I don't quite understand now why I bought that, but bought it I did (judging by the fact that I myself created that pidgin cat). Yeah, it really needs to be fixed and a native speaker is the best candidate for that kind of job, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:01, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Oh there you go with the native speaker line again man. What exactly do you do for a living? Professor of English or something I bet! :) Anyway, given my exemplary command of the English language (and speeling and gramma) I have put it at CfD. Also note, the other couple of cats I have also nominated earlier today for renaming. --Russavia 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I almost fell for your "professor of English" compliment, but then realized it's just a cheap ploy to get me do all the work (and no, that's not what I do for a living). As for the CfD, I have just seconded the nomination. Haven't had a chance to look at the other couple of cats you nominated; will do so now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago you asked

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

???

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

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

Soviet Story

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

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

Proposed Removal of all non de jure Diplomatic Missions

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

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of AIM Ad Hack

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

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

Edit summaries

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

Edit warring on Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russavia, be advised that your topic ban includes edits to your talk page. Any further edits in the vein of the above will be deemed violations of the topic ban (as well as potentially blockable personal attacks), except for any edits strictly necessary to undertake an appeal of the sanction as provided for in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. To the extent that your comments above constitute such an appeal to me, it is declined, because to the limited extent you address the edit for which you were banned, you claim that it was meant humorously, which is not credible because it is at odds with the serious and combative attitude displayed by you in this conflict, and also because your comments above are further examples of battleground-like behaviour.  Sandstein  05:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits to my talk page are included in part of the ban? I will fight you on that. I will wait for someone to ask me a question on some part of Russian history, and for me to provide them information and a link, and then let's see you block me for good for that. And like I said, you are going to do absolutely f' all about User:Vecrumba (look at page history), User:Martintg (look at page history, and Martintg's own admission on talk page that he had not even cited the sources), User:Biophys (, , , and User:Digwuren , using of Misplaced Pages as a battleground to insert information into Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) which 1) they had not even cited and 2) TOTALLY failed verification. Or is it totally ok with you for editors to call Russians "rapists"? What ya gonna do about that? I await your (probable laughable) answer to the question on those editors using WP as a battleground. --Russavia 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if Sandstein does nothing, which he won't, I will take this further to have the above editors blocked from the same subject area. More egregious than my using Propagandic Republic of Latvia on a talk page, and my inserting of sourced information into an article (with edit summary which indicated that I would fight its removal, due to the history of these editors in using Misplaced Pages at a battleground to call Russian rapists and other such shit) is things such as what these editors did on the Soviet War Memorial article. There is also Biophys' use of article talk pages to call Vladimir Putin a paedophile . What kind of sick shit is that? You condoning such things Sandstein? If you don't ban these editors from these topics, it is clear that you agree with these editors calling Russian rapists in articles without viewing sources, and when those sources are proven to not include their claims for these editors to reinsert accusations of Russians being rapists into the same article using the same sources which have been proven not to include said information, and it is also totally ok for editors to use talk pages to accuse a BLP figure of being a paedophile. Oh yeah, you'll notice that one of my blocks for edit warring was because of Biophys re-inserting poorly sourced information of Putin being a paedophile into the Alexander Litvinenko, i.e. removing information that called the claims wild and unsubstantiated, and also a scholar's opinion on Litvinenko being a one man disinformation bureau. Of course, nothing happened to him for this. Where is the WP:BATTLE ban under WP:DIGWUREN for these editors? Is this type of behaviour being condoned by the community? One can only say that it is as nothing is ever done about it. So if Sandstein does nothing, I will ask at the same noticeboard, that these editors also be banned, because I have let such stuff slide in the past, but no longer will I. --Russavia 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what do we have here. Totally ignoring issues on the talk page, and consensus on the talk page, Biophys has taken my 55 hour banning as an opporunity to revert to his favoured version of Alexander Litvinenko, with the always laughable and pathetic "compromise version". Of course, Biophys' compromise version includes removing sourced information which is critical of Litvinenko, deliberately misrepresenting sources in an attempt to use WP as a tool of advocacy and propaganda, the continued reinsertion of links which breach copyright, deliberately poisoning NPOV (changing section heading "Dismissal from the FSB" to "Persecution" ), and a whole host of other things. Who exactly is using WP as a battleground here? Sandstein, you had better blanket ban Biophys from ALL articles on the same area. --Russavia 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed the whole story, WTF is happening? It appears that now you even cannot sign with your own name. Sandsteins must be proud of themselves. NVO (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)

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

Question for NVO

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

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

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

You have now overstepped the mark Sandstein, and I will never agree to the draconian ban that you have placed on me; a ban which even forbids me from questioning the ban, and the actions of other editors. Sorry, but no, I will not agree. --Russavia 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And answer the question. Do you condone the actions of other editors above? --Russavia 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are of course not banned from questioning your ban; my message above explicitly allowed any edits required to make an appeal. But your topic ban does cover allegations of improper editing by others in the area you are topic-banned from. As to the conduct by others you refer to, I have not looked at it. I prefer to deal with one issue at a time, and that issue is currently your conduct. Once the problems with your conduct are resolved, I will be amenable to examining whether administrative action is needed against others, provided any requests are made in an actionable form, such as through a {{arbitration enforcement request}}. Though such a request cannot come from you during the next six months because of your topic ban.  Sandstein  19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well here we go. I am fucked if I do, and I am fucked if I don't. You say that I am supposed to take issues to WP:AE, but at the same time you say that I am banned from even alleging improper editing from others, thereby meaning that I can't even go to WP:AE. Can someone else please explain to me this ridiculousness? --Russavia 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You can take your issues to AE in six months after your topic ban expires. Other people can do it now. If nobody else is bothered by the conduct of the editors you complain about, it is likely that the problem is not very grave or urgent.  Sandstein  20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and answer this. You are also telling me that if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Barack Obama is a paedophile, and I alert you to this you would take action, but if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile, and I alert you to this, I will be seen to be in violation of the topic ban? Please, do not make up the rules as you go along. --Russavia 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, such BLP violations with respect to Vladimir Putin have nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Alerting admins to them does not violate the topic ban.  Sandstein  20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you're making a huge mistake here by banning one of the best editors of the Russia-related articles! KNewman (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of others WP:BATTLE - topic ban be damned

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russavia, if somebody else makes a proper WP:AE request about this, I will look at it, as will other admmins, but you are currently topicbanned and not helping yourself. If you continue in this vein, I will remove your ability to edit your talk page.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are going to sit idly by and let these editors get away with such things. Surely calling one a Nazi is worse than telling editors that I will fight them on something they have a history of doing. And since when has others calling me a fucking Nazi part of any topic ban? I don't recall you banning me from the topic area of "lets call Russavia a Nazi and HistoricWarrior a wanker" - can you show me the article that goes along with that? What a fucking joke. --Russavia 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, I suggest you WP:CHILL and maybe wait a few days before responding. you're obviously agitated by your ban but continually swearing and being aggressive and blaming others for it is not helping. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not blaming others, but I am saying that there are factors which contribute to such things, and that it is only fair that those factors be investigated also. Sandstein refuses to do this, which can only be seen as implicit approval of the behaviour of others as I have raised here. It's about being equitiable and making all editors responsible for their own edits, instead of using carefully selected diffs in order to get rid of a content opponent. --Russavia 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps wait for a few other admins to view this. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

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

this is a most unusual request. and I must say reinforcing want to battle. Requesting others to edit or comment on behalf of you whilst blocked is not really recommended. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If another editor makes an AE request in their own words, I will not consider this to be forbidden proxy editing (but other admins may disagree).  Sandstein  08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

If Russavia wants to contest the ban, he may do so through an appeal as explained above. But overturning it would require sustained on-wiki admin consensus, which is unlikely as long as Russavia insists that everybody else is the problem. No matter how productive Russavia may be, battleground-like conduct of the sort that led to his ban is not tolerated. Everybody is dealt with on their own merits; if any other editor with a similar history of disruption commits similar misconduct, they may get a similar sanction following an AE request, but Russavia is not entitled to demand that others are sanctioned just because he has been.  Sandstein  08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not demanding that others be sanctioned. I am asking that others conduct also be looked at; it is just that their conduct deserves sanctions. After having given the evidence to you on several occasions, you refuse to do that, and claim that I am unable to raise others conduct for discussion due to a topic ban, which even bans me from discussing the topic ban in a fair fashion, because others conduct is also a problem. I am not blaming everyone else at all; I am responsible for my own edits, and cop things on the chin. But what I have not done is run like a school kid to admins everytime someone has done something to offend me (and I am thicker skinned than those who reported me...I would never run to an admin to ask that others be blocked for saying "Propagandic Russian Federation" - that in my mind is just childish and pathetic reason to ask for a ban). And I certainly wouldn't use other editors pushing me for answers to questions raised on a talk page as evidence of battleground conditions - WP:V is a key condition of WP, apparently. But I am now going to ask for WP:AE for editors using a talk page to accuse Putin of being a paedophile, admitting on Putinism that they want to make a "grotesque article" (this is pure abuse of WP as a tool to advocate), inserting information into articles calling Soviet soldiers rapists after using sources which turned out to be completely false (this means no sighting of sources took place), calling myself a Nazi and another editor a wanker, and other things. The biggest mistake I have made is not raising these things officially at WP:AE officially and asking for sanctions, because according to Sandstein, he who bitches first, bitches last, and even if the people who bitched first have done things which are worthy of sanctions, I have no right to address a single thing, even though I have been involved in witnessing their actions (and often been at the end of their actions)...Stalin would be proud that his legacy of show trials is alive and well. --Russavia 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, you need to understand that your topic ban is because of your own battleground-like behavior, and the behavior of others has absolutely nothing to do with your ban. Your topic ban would also have been imposed if your perceived opponents were the worst sort of vandals one can imagine. You are best served by agreeing to abide by your topic ban in order to be unblocked, demonstrate for a few months that you can contribute non-aggressively, and then maybe ask for a lifting of the ban based on your good conduct. Continuing to frame the issue as a conflict between you and others will not help you at all; indeed, this pattern of behavior is the reason why you were topic-banned in the first place.  Sandstein  08:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)