Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 20 September 2008 (→Copy of email sent to ARBCOM in relation to sockpuppet debacle: updated links to admin notice - now in archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1. Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Nord Stream

You're right, the way I had written that was not very NPOV. Thanks for fixing that. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-14 17:30

Re: Category:Kosovo stubs

Hi Russavia - I have reverted and re-protected Category:Kosovo stubs. This category was the subject of severe edit-warring for quite some time, and the only solution that editors could agree on was for it to be part of a European parent. As such, it has deliberately been left separate from Category:Serbia stubs, feeding directly into Category:Europe stubs.

Edit warring is bad on articles, but it is many times worse on template/category combinations, since any changes simultaneously affect many articles, putting unnecessary strain on Misplaced Pages's servers (this is one reason why high-use templates are automatically protected). I would advise you to read some of the history of the category and template talk pages for Kosovo-related stub templates, and also some of the discussions on them on the various WP:WSS talk pages, before considering any further changes to these stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to point me to the discussion where it was decided that editors agreed it should only stay as part of a European parent? Because I can't for one second believe that Serbian editors would ever have agreed to such a thing. --Russavia 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CIS - Saakashvili

Whatever Georgia's current status is in CIS, please make sure that your edits are not motivated by political hatreds. I am saying that because I have not mentioned Saakashvili at all but you suddenly made him part of the justification of reverting the edit. Please try not to do that that again and keep your opinionated edits to yourself. I never mentioned Medvedev when reverting anyone.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My edits never are, nor have been, motivated by my belief that Saakashvili has betrayed his own people and country, and acts only in his own self-interests and the interests of his masters in Washington. My edits are NPOV, and will continue to be as such. The edit summary relates directly to your own with saying Georgia doesn't care; the fact is, Georgia is still a full member of the CIS for the next 12 months, whether Saakashvili likes that or not. --Russavia 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CIS map (latest effort...)

I like your latest CIS map: I think it reflects the complex situation correctly. Please make sure to keep a true copy in case it gets vandalized. I only suggest changing the legend for Ukraine: "Non-member founding state". Ukraine is one of the three CIS founders, no escaping from the fact (see the proposed version put up for comments in my sandbox). --Zlerman (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A copy of the map will always be found on commons, and can always be reverted if changes are made to it which don't reflect the reality of the membership of the CIS. In regards to Ukraien, if you think the legend should be changed, feel free to do this if you like; I am more concentrating on these South Ossetia article at the moment; the CIS one being on my list of things to get around to, but which I never seem to do, but I'll try to lend a hand in the coming weeks. --Russavia 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Embassy image

Hi Russavia,

Thanks for your recent message about the Serbian Embassy image. I know things have gone wrong with it, I just didn't remember to specify the licence when I was uploading it, and I re-uploaded it to choose the right licence but apparently it didn't work. What do I do? The image qualifies as own work, so there should be no problems with the copyright. Do I have to delete it and re-upload? Let me know what's best to do.

I will upload more images of all the embassies at Mosfilmovskaya Street provided I get close enough to take pictures.

Take care, Denghu (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

EU and it neighbors

I am just wondering why did you make THIS edit? The article did not say that they were EU members so you need to stop placing misleading information in the editing summary. Article said that Moldova and Ukraine are EU neighbors - meaning they border the EU.There is a very big difference between being a neighbor and being a "member" you need to get it fixed or I will have to revert all other edits because it does not let me do it separately.Stop placing misleading edit summaries --Satt 2 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that I took it to mean that Ukraine and Moldova are EU neighbours, with English as my native tongue, is evidence enough that others could misconstrue the sentence as it was written that Moldova and Ukraine are in the EU; either way that they border on the EU is quite irrelevant in the overall scheme of things --Russavia 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant and it is not very important either. Its just that when they are neighbors, they are neighbors and there is no need to remove it and misinterpret things in the edit summary. We can not assume who would "misconstrue" the statement and who would not. Whether you are a native speaker of English or not is irrelevant - even a beginner can see the difference between a "neighbor" and a "member" state.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, it matters not that they are EU neighbours, what matters is that they are construed to be in the Russian sphere of influence, and which has until now been threatened by the US and EU. This is what this is all about, one nations sphere of influence encroaching on another's, and the EU's tacit support of such. Germany's EU neighbour is France. An EU neighbour of Latvia is Lithuania, and it is in that sense that it could very well be misconstrued. --Russavia 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sphere of Influence is the term from last century and that is exactly where Russian mentality still is, However, I think political opinions are irrelevant while editing the article. You have a dangerous tendency of making politics part of the discussion and even naming particular names that you dont seem to like. The fact that those countries border EU is not irrelevant because the fact that they directly border it definitely made the fears more intense. IT should be mentioned to effectively communicate the fact that they are closer to EU than Georgia is, which by itself makes fears even more intense.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sphere of influence is a term from this century, and as has been opined by many analysts on this situation, only the mentally asleep do not see what is happening here. And of course it has EVERYTHING to do with politics. Have a read of this to begin with. --Russavia 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not care what that article is about. All I care about is to make sure that politics has no place in the editing process.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't care what the article is about, then please also think about the consequences that certain terms and the way things are words can have; how they can come across to certain editors. Also, the removal of information is usually best done AFTER requesting a cite. If you know that the fact these countries border on the EU is reason for the EU to be scared, then you would surely also know that these ex-Soviet countries are in fact traditionally within the Russian sphere of influence; the removal seemed to me to be just a tad disruptive; much like your whacking an NPOV tag on CIS without a corresponding discussion on the talk page for it. --Russavia 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

table format destinations lists

Can you please have these reverted to original format as for all arline destination list articles, SilkAir destinations, AirBaltic destinations, Jat Airways destinations.116.71.46.119 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hesitant to do that on any articles, due to the fact that these lists have been nominated in the past for deletion, and have only just scraped through. If they were all to be nominated again, my opinion will have changed to delete them, due to them not being referenced to independent, non-airline, reliable sources. You may want to raise the issue at WP:AIRLINES. --Russavia 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Russia

I'm belives if Russia recognised independence Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia should recognised independence Kosovo. It is fair. Im Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosn1 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and the same goes for US/NATO/EU. The hypocrisy of all sides is amazing, but such is the way of international politics. But I can say, it is great to see that Russia is now a strong state again, unlike the mid 1990s when the rest of the world, particularly the US, ignored the potential consequences of their actions in treating the Russian people as below themselves, and disregarding Russian worries with the eastward advance of NATO. A strong Russian state was inevitable, it's just a shame that the rest of the world missed their chance to make Russia a true equal partner. --Russavia 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone is going around relisting Kosovo as part of Serbia in airline destinations lists, I have reverted it for Malev Hungarian Airlines destinations.203.81.233.51 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is part of Serbia in relation to international civil aviation; just as Abkhazia and South Ossetia for the foreseeable future will be part of Georgia in terms of same. Until such time as any nation is a UN member, the ICAO will regard these destinations as part of it's present/former state (depending on which side of the divide one sits). --Russavia 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sangye Penjor presents credentials to U Thant.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Sangye Penjor presents credentials to U Thant.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Images menaced with deletion

Hello, Russavia

On this talk I saw your ordeal in defending the images from Osinform. Your collocutor said that one could express one's opinion in the appropriate request for deletion. However, I do not know which pictures are in question, would you write them, so that I express myself too? Greetings Bogorm (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

deccan becomes Kingfisher Red

This Indian carrier has been rebranded, wiki article is diverting to new name but destinations article still reads Deccan destinations, please update it.116.71.57.58 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Howdy, as you probably know I'm just hanging around International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia watching and trying to keep divisions to a minimum. I happened to notice this sequence of edits. While I commend you guys for not continuing to revert each other, its still not what it could be. The edits I'm talking about are revert by Russavia revert by Elysander and revert by Russavia.

Please be sure that that you guys are able to discuss this and come to a valid conclusion. I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion if there is not one already (I did not see one).

Finally please note that I am including the same message to User:Elysander. —— nixeagle 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but my point is completely neuthral I am removing non-neuthral point of viuew and biased points of vciuew which is misleading the readers, like for example the incorrect information about massive shelling of Tskinvali(was denied by international observers) and number of civilian casualities.

Also to keep article neuthral I have added "According to the Russian media" to the parts which are so far reporter only by the russian media and no one else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumber (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is little better, much much better than "according to Russian propaganda". We don't use according to Georgia, US, EU propaganda, so there is no reason to use it for Russian, unless of course one is trying to introduce their own POV into the article, and that was the objection that I had to your massive revision and removal edit. --Russavia 11:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Int'l recognition US Congress quote

No, I am not Russian. And I actually agree with the "owner" of the article that there are already too many quotes on the page. But a quote from a U.S. Congressional Hearing on this precise subject is pertinent and therefore it should stay. You can read more here and here. Jagiellon (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello mate, hope all is well "down under"... I agree with the article's "owner" that there are some excessive quotes but what started it was the introduction of POV-quotes by everyone from Robert Gates, Bush, Condi Rice, etc. I already pointed out that this was undue weight as per WP:WEIGHT. Now I merely added one more single quote, which is from Washington too, but which is about balance and fairness. It is notable, being a key part of pertinent hearings. But immediately the article got slapped with 3 new litter-tags. Jagiellon (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of the Medvedev Doctrine? Do you mean the five points of foreign policy (multipolar world, etc.)? If so, that is certainly more attractive than the alternative; the mad Dr.Strangelove-like Defense Planning Guidance from Washington. But I don't have any interest in Russian foreign policy. I just found the Abkhazia recognition article and decided to add it to my watchlist after I noticed how unbalanced it is compared to how the same subject is treated on Kosovo's recognition page. Jagiellon (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetian geography

Nah, I'm not stalking you; I just had Pocopoco's page watchlisted for a reason I no longer remember and your post was the most interesting thing to pop up on my watchlist when I checked it :)

Scanning the pages is a possibility, but my copy of the book with the list in question is in a truly abysmal condition, and I'd rather not subject it to a flatbed scanner torture. Besides, I'm not sure the results are going to be very readable, so I'll just stick to typing. No big deal, really (unless you are going to ask for the whole book next, in which case I'm afraid I'll have to refuse :)) Anyway, I'll start the list here, and you are welcome to move it to wherever it is convenient to you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. The book is called "Грузинская ССР. Административно-территориальное деление на 1 января 1987 г.", изд. "Сабчота Сакартвело", Тбилиси, 1988. If you live in Russia, you probably have better chances of finding a paper copy, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not support aggression, either Russian or Georgian. Enjoy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I know. The official Russian documents recognizing South Ossetia are pretty vague and certainly do not go into such uninteresting and unimportant details as borders :) You'd probably have to look at what South Ossetian powers-that-be produced on this subject and then compare their data with the old borders. Anyway, have fun with the list and let me know if there is anything else I can help with! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

So you know there has been a 3RR report however I also see that you were involved in the sequence of reverts, as such I'd like to bring it to your attention this section Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia#Editwarring. Thanks. —— nixeagle 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see I reverted the mass deletion of materials from the article as that move had zero consensus. Whilst I even encouraged said editor to be WP:BOLD, this was in terms of addition and NPOV'ing things he has a problem with, it didn't go to removing basically the entire article, which is my mind was an outright display of WP:OWN. --Russavia 03:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP problems

Frankly speaking, I think that labeling people "criminals" is inappropriate if the convictions were disputed by international human rights organizations, who described the victims as political prisoners. Since you are doing this repeatedly, I ask you to revert yourself back. If you disagree, I will have to ask for additional opinions at the BLP noticeboard and other appropriate forums. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If Russian courts convicted them of criminal offences, then they are criminals. Just because a human rights organisation claims they are political prisoners, this does not change the fact that they were convicted on criminal charges in Russian courts, thereby making them criminals. You can't have one POV without the other I am afraid. --Russavia 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you refused, I will post this at the BLP noticeboard to collect more opinions.Biophys (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From article political prisoner: "it also happens that political prisoners are arrested and tried with a veneer of legality, where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, and unfair trials are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner.". Are they criminals?Biophys (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest that you read the definition of a criminal. The political prisoner moniker may fit your anti-Russian POV, but you have clearly forgotten that we are WP:NPOV, this means he may be regarded as a political prisoner by one side of the equation, the other side says he is a criminal. What you are doing is WP:NOTADVOCATE, and that's a no-no. --Russavia 01:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Only waring

This is the only revert on this material that you get, and further revisions will be considered edit warring and you will be subject to a block. Tiptoety 03:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not edit warring, it is removing of content which has already been discussed and for which broad consensus already exists in that it should not be in the article. --Russavia 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email.--Miyokan (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the email, but I accidentally deleted it before I could reply. They obviously have written quite a lot, most of it vitriolic in nature, but until such time as they are published by a reliable source, I don't think we can use their writings as a source on Russophobia. I am sure that if they were to send the writings to organisations with great editorial standards and oversight such as Novaya Gazeta or RFE/RL, they would like get published in a heartbeat; which would furthermore fit in with the pro-American, anti-Russian line that they all like to push; the tin foil hat crowd, of which they are members, would lap it up. I'm also not surprised at the pro-Georgian line they take; as they say, you can take the boy out of Georgia, but you can't take Georgia out of the boy; one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Feel free to contact me if you need further clarification on reliable sources of information, but I can say that in this case, I would take anything they say on the issue with a grain of salt, and simply put it down to a case of being indoctrinated listening to Voice of America propaganda for too long. Unfortunately, opinions are like arseholes; everyone's got one, and as with all fringe groups and conspiracy theorists, there will always be those who will lap up anything they have to say. I think we should just stick to reliable, published sources. --Russavia 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessments script

I have a copy at User:Kevinalewis/projecttagger.js but I am making no guarantees about it at this stage. I intend to develop it further so bear with it. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've installed it and works a treat. Please keep me informed if you can of updates, etc. --Tovarishch Komissar 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Aeroflot and Aeroflot Nord

Is there a source saying that Aeroflot wetleased the plane from Aeroflot Nord and operated the aircraft?

AFAIK Aeroflot Nord has a totally separate fleet from Aeroflot; Aeroflot has Airbus A320s while Aeroflot Nord has 737s. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

your upload of Image:Aeroflot-Nord VP-BKO Boeing 737-500.jpg

Any reason why this couldn't go straight to Commons? --Mareklug 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems OTRS is still pending, so I would wait and see if it is confirmed first. Check with the original uploader first I guess, and move it over to commons in the event OTRS is forthcoming. --Tovarishch Komissar 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

--Russavia 05:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks for your harassment and attempted outing of Biophys. Any admins reviewing this block, please see WP:AN#Serious ban request, deleted contribs for Russavia, and deletedrevs of my talk page. Moreschi (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked and apologies

After 3 times rechecking, I am unblocking your account. Please accept my apologies for all the inconvenient situation. I surely must have confused some of your personal IPs starting with 121.X.X.X with Miyokan socks' IPs which are similar. The second time I was getting "timed out". It was until the third time that I could get it. Yes, you edit from different places. You account is therefore being unblocked. Sorry for all the mess. fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will accept the apology when Miyokan is also unbanned for sockpuppetry and receives an apology also, as the community has already dealt with his previous use of accounts, and is totally unrelated to the admin noticeboard case, it has merely been raised by the packdogs in that case (and I will stand by that, as you can see from the responses). I also expect the entire section above to be removed completely from records -- that I had to publicly declare my personal details in an attempt for admins to actually listen is despicable and the entire section needs to be removed. And I would also mind for other admins instead of high fiving themselves to see what such actions can take, making them look like complete idiots, which in my minds raises doubts as to why they are admins in the first place. --Russavia 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I am reinstating my request for unblock by Moreschi, as is evident from his comments on the Admin noticeboard he is not a neutral admin in this case. --Russavia 11:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the unblock request for now, just a note: if you should want that personal info above removed/deleted/oversighted, let me know, and let's do it quickly so as not to have too many intervening edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi FPS, I would like the edit with my personal details removed completely, even from history. I only placed it there in order to actually get an admin to listen and realise that a big SNAFU had occurred. (after 4 or 5 didn't). Cheers --Russavia 11:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done, by selective deletion. If you want complete removal (invisible even to admins) you'll have to contact Oversight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been done by looks of it. All that has simply happened is removal of content still visible in the edit history. Both myself and Miyokan should never have had to reveal our IPs and I should never have had to reveal my name, address, etc, etc in an attempt to have an admin who should know how to perform a simple check user to do it properly. I also see that no details have been removed Miyokans talk page, which was placed by himself in order to have this fuck up (sorry, there is no other word for it) corrected. Additionally, I see that Fayssal has not apologised to Miyokan either, so his apology has still not been accepted here, and I will be pushing for him to have his check-user privileges revoked. If an admin can not do a simple IP location check, why do they have checkuser available to them in the first place? How many other editors have been openly accused of this and been blocked by Fayssal, all the while they are innocent without the nouse to make it plainly clear that they have f'ed up. As I said, if this were the real world with Fayssal as judge, jury and executioner, I would have no head left, an editors would be standing around pissing on my grave. --Russavia 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Russavia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At no stage have I attempted to out Biophys, nor have I harrassed having posted on his talk page no more than a couple of times in all time I have been on WP; mainly AfD notifications. What I have done, is used evidence which is freely available to place a notice on Orientations of Proteins in Membranes database that the author of this article may have a possible conflict of interest in the article, due to being referenced in the sources and being connected with the project itself. I also made it quite clear in the edit summary that this does not reflect upon said editors edits in that article. I then proceeded to place a notice on the editors talk page advising him that I have placed a notice on this article in relation to a possible conflict of interest and provided a link to WP:COI so that he could see why exactly this was placed on his talk page and the article page. I have placed such notices on articles before, such as this and User talk:Airasia webmaster. The raising of a conflict of interest on an article an talk page can not constitute harrassment, as the COI guideline is available for a reason. I didn't attempt to out Biophys at any stage, simply stating "I know" does not constitute harrassment nor does it constitute "outting" of an editor. All that has been done is placement of a COI notice on an article and talk page. I don't recall ever placing anything on Biophys' talkpage in the past, aside from AfD notices, and as I have followed the COI guideline, it can't be constituted as harrassment or outting, and I will not harrass editors in future (as I have not done so in the past). As one can see from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Serious_ban_request and latest developments we have non-neutral admins contributing to the packdog mentality, and that is not on. I will be taken that issue up when the block is lifted/over regardless. The banning admin is the same admin who started that conversation and has engaged in uncivility by calling another editor the "very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned" and a "nutter". This is clearly not a neutral admin who works on WP policy but rather has fed and been fed by the packdog mentality; to view another example of Moreschi feeding and being fed by the packdog mentality refer to Misplaced Pages:AN#Russavia_unblocked.2FNo_sockpuppetry (just below his own request), and I will also be pushing for sanctions again Moreschi in regards to his incivility in calling others nutters and the "worst", and would question his ability also in holding adminship when I have presented the evidence on my talk page, only a blind freddy couldn't see that a major screw up had occurred; I question the ability of Moreschi to be neutral and objective in reviewing evidence and making decisions based upon policy.

Decline reason:

Attacking other users such as Moreschi is no way to get yourself unblocked. Additionally, the evidence provided below is pretty convincing. Given the complexity of this case, I am not comfortable unblocking, your best bet would be to apply directly to the WP:ARBCOM to review your case. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No offence to you Jayron, the evidence provided is so convincing that the total block has been lifted because of another's screw up. What is convincing is that there is a packdog mentality on WP, and it goes to admins as well, in both encouragement and participation. There is no point me taking this to WP:ARBCOM as that takes 4 weeks, and I am somewhat uncomfortable in even taking it there, due to Fayssal being part of ARBCOM and the fact that I have stated above that I am going to push for his check-user rights to be revoked completely; there isn't a chance in hell that opinions there are not going to be swayed by what I have stated. So what I am going to do is lap up the 2 week ban, and put both Fayssal and Moreschi on notice that once I return I will be addressing both Fayssal's inability to use check user (again, a GeoIP check is a basic function that even a novice net user can work out) and Moreschi's incivility in attacking other editors. Note, I haven't attacked Moreschi at all, I haven't called him the "worst of all the admins who haven't yet had their privileges revoked", nor have I called him a nutter - although I did take him up on this at the discussion, which he has not yet answered. I have questioned his ability to make unbiased judgements based on policy and his uncivility towards other editors, and I will stand by that, regardless of what may or may not happen. --Russavia 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll expand on what Tiptoety says. The first unblock request was declined by himself on the grounds that Miyokan was a confirmed sockpuppet of myself...and we all know where that lead. The other unblock requests were due to what we now know was a major f' up, and one which is yet to be addressed to my satisfaction. What you are seeing on the admin noticeboard is nothing more than an attempt to get rid of an adversary, and this is evident by the continual support of the editor who is responsible for that foul mouthed tirade which I posted earlier...look at Biophys' own comments from 03:50, 17 September 2008. The other thing that hasn't been addressed is why was this supposed outting done by an editor? What was the reason behind it? I know what was behind it, but does anyone else? Does anyone care? I'll tell you, it was an attempt to make people understand why certain editors hold such fringe views and they are prominently making their way into articles...such as the belief that Putin is a paedophile...a belief that was re-affirmed after User:Irpen commented to Biophys that "outlandish remarks...in public fora are completely outrageous". Taken into account what I perceive as WP:OWN (on articles such as Talk:Web_brigades), taken into account other editors with their unhelpful interjections such as on Talk:Georgia_for_Georgians (an article which you may be interested in helping to develop...contact me for sources if you like, ranging from Russian, Georgian, Western, HRW, UNHCR, and other international organisations). On that article, look here User_talk:Moreschi#Nationalist_soapbox, why are they running to Moreschi for this? Of course I wouldn't put it past certain editors to try to AfD it in my absence, so please keep an eye on that. What you are seeing on that noticeboard is nothing more than a rabid pack of dogs trying to take down an adversary - and I stand by that rapid pack of dogs comments, you need only see from when I was a confirmed sockpuppeteer. And I am still questioning why Moreschi, who is an involved admin (as one can clearly see) is handing out 2 week blocks to editors for nothing more than a friendly notice of a COI. Unfortunately, you won't be able to view that as it has been removed from all records; it was not accusatory in nature, it was a mere alerting an editor to the fact that because they are involved that they may have a possible COI; done as the article itself stated the project is the only one of its kind, yet I couldn't find a cited source that states that. Of course WP:AGF is non-existent with this pack obviously, and WP:CIVIL is out of the question also; and that has been raised as to why Moreschi is able to get away with calling an editor the "very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned" and an editor who is prone to "egregious nuttery"; he is not an innocent bystander, he is deeply involved in this, and it is inappropriate for an involved admin to be handing out blocks. --Russavia 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, you may want to work on these User:Russavia/SouthOssetia; they are the towns that were in the SOAO, so most should correspond to the modern borders of the independent South Ossetia; feel free to modify that in my userspace if you so wish, it's an important part of the Ossetia Project that needs to be developed. --Russavia 09:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, make it be known to Tiptoety, that I am not taking this in my stride, as placing a COI notice does not constitute harrassment. Ask this question. In the said article, is the main author of that article referenced in the sources? Is the main author of that article related to the subject of the article? The answer is yes, therefore, there is a possible conflict of interest. Of course, all of this has now deleted, and they can make up all sorts of conjecture as to motives and the like, but we have already seen one result of their conjecture, haven't we? Tiptoety's insistence that I was blocked for apparently doing the same as Miyokan is not at all credible, as stating "I know" to another user (not Miyokan) in an AfD discussion does not constitute outting -- for if it did, why has said editor not also received a two-week block? Ask that question, coz I sure as hell will be. --Russavia 13:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy of email sent to ARBCOM in relation to sockpuppet debacle

Hi,

First off, my username on WP is Russavia and is in relation to user FayssalF

It is with regret that I am bringing this case to ARBCOM. I want it to be known that I hold no grudge against FayssalF but feel that for the best interests of the overall project that I have to bring this request here. As this involves one of your own, I know there is going to be a desire to write off anything I may have to say, and possibly use the filing of this report against myself in another report I will be filing and directly related to this. I do hope that members of ARBCOM can view this without bias.

I was blocked by User:Moreschi due to alleged harrassment of another editor. What brought this accusation of harrassment up was due to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive169#Serious_ban_request

After a two week block which I received (and will be addressing separately), Fayssal proceeded to do a check-user on myself and User:Miyokan which he announced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive169#Russavia.2C_confirmed_sock_of_Miyokan.3F

An admin, User:Tiptoety then proceeded to indef block both myself and Miyokan on case of being sockpuppets (Miyokan as being one of my socks).

I attempted to have this sockpuppet block removed on account of providing my IP address in an open fora, so that editors/admins could see that I was in Perth (Western Australia), whereas Miyokan was in Nizhniy Novgorod (Russia). These attempts were denied due to the check-user that had been performed by Fayssal. A check-user which he himself confirmed the results of in that thread above. I proceeded to send an email to Miyokan (for only the 3rd time that I can remember we have ever had a direct discussion) in order to talk to him about this. In the meantime, Fayssal had posted a message to my talk page which in effect stated that Miyokan being in Nizhniy Novgorod is not the case, and that I should know this as both Russavia and Miyokan are in Australia.

When discussing with Miyokan not long after I sent the email, I found out that he was in fact located not in Nizhniy Novgorod, but in Adelaide (South Australia). After that, I then became aware of the message Fayssal left on my TP; and I responded to the effect that the results of the check-user should be revealed, as I know I am in Perth, and I know that Miyokan is in Adelaide (but did not mention Miyokan's location due to privacy).

Luckily, and thankfully, I was able to convince Miyokan to place his IP on his talk page, with a note to say it is for my use. I then posted both IPs on my talk page, and provided the relevant links to check them (www.network-tools.com and www.geohacks.com) and that would reveal that we are not in the same location, and hence not the same user.

Fayssal said that he tried but was getting timeout messages and would look again. Whilst all of this is happening, discussions is still going on at the Admin noticeboard, and nothing short of Wikimurder was going on - a fact I pointed out to Fayssal at the time.

Eventually Fayssal came back and confirmed that what was being said all along my myself was in fact the truth. He placed a notice on my talk page with an apology. This and my response can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Russavia#Unblocked_and_apologies

I responded to this stating that the apology would be wholeheartedly accepted once a similar apology was made to Miyokan, as the community has already dealt with his previous use of two accounts - which stopped immediately when he was alerted to it being a no-no. And I stand by the comments there. And yes, I am still willing to accept the apology so long as Miyokan also receives the same apology, as both of our accounts were unneedlessly dragged thru the mud, and if the accusation can be made jointly, then so should the apology.

That's the background. Now here's the problem.

What has occurred here is a total breakdown in admins doing check-users or the check-user system itself is horribly flawed and needs to fixed. This does not take into account our totally different style, completely different editing subjects, with little or no interaction, etc - this episode should be directly mentioned at WP:DUCK as a prime example as to why WP:DUCK is inherrently flawed.

Consider this one question. If I was not able to convince Miyokan to reveal his IP, where would we be at now? That is the question that needs to be considered in conjunction with the fact that a Geo-IP check is a simple operation, an internet novice is able to do it. How is it that Fayssal was not able to immediately determine upon doing a check-user that both Miyokan and myself are located in opposite sides of the country. Either that system has failed Fayssal or Fayssal has failed the system; its one of the two. I do believe that whatever the breakdown, that Fayssal was somewhat rash in putting 2 and 2 together, except he reached 5 instead of the expected result, and that this sole judge, jury and executioner system is fraught with danger.

I am not alone in these concerns, as User:Irpen has raised this issue at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive169#What_the_hell_happened_here.3F

And my Irpen's concerns mirror my own. Who? What? How?

I would like this to be investigated and for the community to be advised as to what has caused this breakdown.

If it was the "fault" of the check-user system that you use, then obviously that needs to be looked at and rectified asap.

If it was the "fault" of Fayssal, then I would expect some type of sanction against himself. As I mentioned on my talk page, I believe a revocation of check-user rights would be in order. However, whilst I believe Fayssal made some rash decisions and comments, that he is sincerely sorry that this occurred, so I would ask that any such revocation be kept to a minimum; a few days at most; obviously with some further reinforcement on how to use the systems that you use.

I'm not a prick as can be plainly seen, and I hold no ill-will against Fayssal, and I hope nor he against me.

I would ask ARBCOM to consider this email and revert back to me if anything else is required from me and/or to advise me of an outcome.

The above email was sent to Arbcom on 17 September. Now some 3 days later, I have yet to hear a word from Arbcom, and an email sent asking for a simple recognition of receipt of the email, 24 hours after the initial email was sent, also lays unanswered. --Russavia 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines destinations list being vandalised with flags

Someone is repeatedly adding flags there please issue them a warning, I have reverted most recent edit there.116.71.49.197 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)