Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 16 November 2008 (→A question and suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Missions in Taipei

A contributor has suggested that diplomatic missions in Taipei belonging to sending states that do not recognise the Republic of China should not be listed with a flag of the Republic of China, should be referred to as "Taiwan" and should contain a caveat specifying sending state does not recognise the Republic of China. While he has made this change to Diplomatic missions of Ireland, it would be appropriate that whatever decision to made to this article also is made in all the other DMBC articles (both the receiving and sending articles).

• I am against removing Taiwan's flag to the exclusion of others.
• I am against including caveats about the status of diplomatic relations, as this is not central to articles about diplomatic missions
• I am against a change to the self-identification principle, in which receiving states are listed according to their own name. I however acknowledge there is inconsistency in the application of this rule and would reconsider my position if there is strong support to apply the logical alternative (receiving states are named according to how sending states know them). This decision however is fiddlier and would put us in direct conflict with Taiwanese (and Macedonians) who would have other agendas.

In short it is not worth the extra work, and I am not certain that this new contributor is prepared for all the extra work (and edit wars) his change entails. Please provide your views in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland

Russian airbases

You'll probably think this is another attempt of mine to pull you into a numbingly boring maintenance endeavor (and you wouldn't be far from the truth), but would you be interested in cleaning up this category (and perhaps this one as well)? The reason I'm asking is that quite a few of the airbase names conflict with the names of inhabited localities, but since the sources used to support the airbases information leave much to be desired, and since every other airbase article contains at least one alternative name, I'd very much want to see them cross-verified before I put any labor into incorporating these article into the overall disambiguation scheme. You are the only active editor I know who has interest in Russian aviation, and this is aviation-related, right? Right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a stab at them in the near future if that's ok. At the moment, I am somewhat tied up with this fun project. I'll also have to dig into my various sources and get as much as possible from them and that you can probably imagine will take some time. --Russavia 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Those articles have been sitting there for almost two years now, if I am not mistaken, and can certainly wait another one if not more :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:SIA lead

Dearest Russavia, thank you for the warm welcome. As much as you have plenty to say to me, however, you are strongly advised to post comments on content issues at the article talkpage, and not in my talkpage. I will continue with the discussion once this is done, thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

A discussion is currently taking place here in regards to your account. Cheers, Tiptoety 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been blocked for 24 hours so I am unable to respond to yet more accusations from Biophys and Grey-Fox. As you are an admin, I am asking you to look at this and act accordingly as well. It is pretty rotten that an editor who inadvertantly breaches 3RR is blocked, whilst an editor who also breaches it (as evidence clearly provides) and additionally seriously breaches WP:BLP, get's nothing. I hope you are objective enough to act on this. --Russavia 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 13 2008 to Alexander Litvinenko

Okay, I do feel that I have to say this.

1. The article in question has since been fully protected, so a block at this point is clearly punitive;
2. Blocking only one participant in this specific situation does nothing but inflame the already long standing issue;

So, I see two options here. Those being unblocking Russavia with the understanding that he will civilly engage in discussion on the articles talk page. Or (the better option IMO) block both parties, and un-protect the article.

Tiptoety 21:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now a relic, but to avoid confusion: T has unprotected the article and decided not to block B William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be harmonious to you guys, but it ain't with me. Going by my timestamps. Revert #1 @ 09:16, 13 November 2008, Revert #2 @ 09:59, 13 November 2008, Revert #3 @ 10:04, 13 November 2008, Revert #4 @ 10:46, 13 November 2008, Revert #5 @ 13:31, 13 November 2008. It was laid out in black and white. And I am not evening mentioning again WP:BLP, unless of course it's completely OK to have unproven accusations presented as fact in an article, i.e. "He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia". I think some serious lessons on WP:BLP are in order here. We could try it out, and let's put it on, let's say, George W. Bush, that Billy Bob accused GWB of paedophilia, and compared him to Jeffrey Dahmer. Billy Bob wrote that among people who knew about GWB's paedophilia (remember, we are presenting this as fact) are Joe Blow and Mavis Brown. What would happen if I did that? Stupid question, right?

I refer all admins to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Biographies_of_living_persons, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Problems_with_biographies_of_living_persons and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons.

Somehow, WP:3RR is a graver crime on WP than WP:BLP, but hey, so long as it's only Putin who the hell cares, right? Just so long as its not against Johnny Two Tooth. This is adminning at its worst, sorry to say guys.

And I love the way you guys have listened to Biophys and his promise to 'discuss' it, but as one can see from his talk page, attempts to discuss this in a civil manner have resulted in him closing avenues of discussion, not myself, as one can see from here, I have continued to discuss, even as I was oblivious to the 3RR discussion taking place. And I have continued to discuss; all the while Biophys is throwing around more accusations of me being a sockpuppet; now where is that checkuser?

Sorry guys, it's pathetic, it's not harmonious. --Russavia 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to run a checkuser on me? Well read on......

You can also take this message as my permission to perform a checkuser on myself, so long as I am advised who is performing it before it is done. I will not agree to a checkuser being done under any other circumstance, because the debacle that FayssalF caused, with myself being called a lier on several occasions, and after a request to arbcom for an explanation on how the checkuser was performed has gone unanswered now for 2 months doesn't give me much confidence in the ability of arbitrators, let alone admins, to be able to perform a simple function.

I don't have to explain to Biophys, or any other user, why as of late I have been online a fair bit. And I don't have to explain this for the same reason Biophys doesn't have to explain why he is so paranoid. It's none of my business, like this is none of his or anyone elses. Anyone who needs to know, knows, and anyone who cares to know, can ask, and if I care to tell you, I will. So speculate all you like Biophys, you'll soon be shown as the fool, not me.

But again, I want to know who is running the checkuser first. --Russavia 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Online a fair bit is rather underestimated, those lengths are pretty absurd man, you can call other users "paranoid" but get some rest alright :-). Meanwhile I've asked for you to be unblocked because I really do not want all this drama. Let's takes things easier alright? Regards. Grey Fox (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have to explain myself to who exactly? I want that check user done, and this will hopefully put a halt to Biophys' paranoid accusations...one can only live in hope...because frankly, the consistency and the veracity of them are starting to piss me off. --Russavia 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Email sent to User:Sam Korn giving him permission to humour Biophys' fishing expedition. Woah! We caught a big one. Might I add, Biophys' continual accusations are under scrutiny here, in which not 2 days ago he stated "Why I said that? Because I was asked, and because I thought this is something really important. But I am not going to repeat this ever if that is what you want." And he is still at. He just doesn't get it. --Russavia 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat what?Biophys (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I have run a check. I see absolutely no evidence of multiple users. There are various features that convince me that all the editing is done from one computer. I can't absolutely rule out the idea that there are two people in the same building using the same machine, but it is a rather fanciful suggestion. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the accusations are thoroughly without merit. Sam Korn 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to explain yourself to anyone, Russavia. I'm glad to see the gossips of account abuse gone. Don't think the request from Bio came out of the blue, because the timetable of your edits has been rather unusual (while I'm not saying that's bad). Nobody is trying to "piss you off" or anything like that, and I think we should all attempt to just get along with each other, despite differences in viewpoints. Grey Fox (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox, I agree with you. However, I would like to see any reasonable explanation how Russavia can edit 24 hours a day non-stop with a couple of one hour breaks (day after day after day...). Someone tells that he can jump 100 feet high. Would you believe?Biophys (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, does it matter? Tiptoety 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If several people should not edit from the same account as you said, then it does matter. If one wants to "ignore all rules", then it does not.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But a CheckUser has already been ran and it has determined without a doubt that Russivia's account is being used by one person, and that person alone. Tiptoety 03:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to abide all WP policies, including CheckUser conclusions, if that is what you are talking about. However as a person, I can not honestly believe anyone's conclusion if it contradicts laws of nature. I hoped that Russavia would explain himself the controversy, but if he does not want, this is his personal business. Fine, let's consider this matter closed.Biophys (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, calm down a bit. It is none of our business how he can edit non-stop. Frankly, your behavior lately has been over the line. Just because Russavia harassed you earlier doesn't entitle you to harass him now. You both leave each other alone. Colchicum (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, that is exactly what I suggested to Russavia when he came back from the block and started following my edits everywhere. I even apologized to him for the trouble: . However he continued doing the same, including accusing me of BLP violations everywhere (and then re-inserting disputed BLP materials I deleted to satisfy his request), reverting my edits everywhere including at ArbCom pages, and so on.Biophys (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A question and suggestion

Russavia, I have never followed your edits on the Russian aviation and foreign policy issues. Would you also agree to stop following my edits on the subjects you was never interested in before returning from the block?. We could also ask Colchicum to be our informal mediator. He thinks it is me who is at fault. This is fine. You and me would explain him a problem. If he tells: "B., I still believe this is all your fault; do not do this; do that", I will follow his advice. Is that something reasonable?Biophys (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks I would agree to such a thing would have to have rocks in their head. For the umpteenth time, I have not, and I do not, follow your edits on WP. Do you think I am only here for Russian aviation - I have done very little on Russian aviation in the time I have been on WP -- I am working on bits here and there, but for the most part, I have been working more on foreign relations of Russia, and will delve in on politics of Russia, as I will also delve in other areas of Russian topics in future. You don't WP:OWN a single article on WP, and your suggestion is nothing more than an assertion of ownership, and that is not on. Additionally, it was yourself you closed all avenues of communication, as proven on your own talk page, after I tried opening those lines with you.

You made accusations against myself on another users talk page, which again, you didn't have the common decency of advising me it was going on. Such sneaky tactics, like the 3RR report, are the acts of children. Grow up. To prove your nuttery wrong, I asked for check user to be done on myself -- of course, I could have let it go on and on and on and on, and laugh at how idiotic it is, but I asked for it -- and in asking for the checkuser, your accusations have been proven wrong. But yet, you still continued to engage in ennuendo and questioning and hounding on my talk page and others talk pages, whilst I made it very, very, very clear that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why I may or may not be online at any given time.

I agree with the block I got, because yes, I did breach 3RR, and there should be one rule for all, not one rule for some, and one for others; and I would have insisted on the block for myself even if Grey Fox did withdraw the complaint (which mind you was done after I demonstrated you had also breached 3RR, thereby showing this was a sneaky attack); and I would have insisted on it, because I believe in one rule for all. You may have been able to weasel your way out of also getting a 3RR block, when you are clearly guilty, by offering to discuss things (an option which I was not given mind you...go figure), but that sincerity is in my mind false sincerity, as demonstrated by you sneakily block-shopping at other venues behind my back afterwards, and then also after I was blocked you started reverting additions to articles which I had edited such as this and this. They don't look like the acts to me of someone who will discuss things with others.

As I said quite clearly on several occasions, I am here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia, and I would like to do so in peace. I try to assume good faith but one can only AGF for so long. So I would kindly ask that you stop harrassing me via evident covert block-shopping, ridiculous accusations and the like, for the consistency of them is pissing me off, and I have had a gutful of it. --Russavia 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, your answer is "no". Sorry, but I simply wanted to follow the advice by Colchicum. I have never harassed you anywhere but simply asked for a little of cooperation. If you do not want, no one can force you. Sorry for the trouble.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have never breached 3RR rule. If I did, I would be blocked just like you. Some of your diffs are not reverts; I also made a self-revert to create a compromise version instead.Biophys (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort; so I will collaborate with all editors, however, it is near on impossible to collaborate with an editor who:

• Continually accuses me of stalking with no evidence of such.
• Continually indirectly accuse me (and others) of being in the employ of Russian security services, simply because I dare collaborate by inserting information which dares go against one's POV. This, especially, can have "real life" consequences.
• Continually accuses me (and others) of being part of some co-ordinated team.
• Continually accuses me of what amounts to vandalism (i.e. removing information which you describe as "protecting vladimir putin").
• Accuses me of using poorly sourced information.
• Engages in sneaky block-shopping and fishing
• After clearly being advised that my account is not used for meatpuppetry, and being told that they are owed no explanation, continues to engage in inappropriate discussion and assertions - also here and here.

Additionally, one finds it hard to assume good faith, when an editor comes to their talk page and again insinuates that I am wikistalking them and that editor asserts ownership of entire articles in the same breathe, and hides it as a question/suggestion.

Add all that together and you get unabashed harrassment.

As to 3RR, if you look at WP:3RR you will see that you also breached it. To prove this, perhaps you would be willing to wave the immunity which you received from William (I guess it was), and have an admin who wasn't involved look at the diffs as I laid out above; for if you do you would find yourself blocked as well. One rule for some, one rule for others. If I do something wrong, I cop it on the chin, and have copped this on the chin, I haven't denied even that one provable fact.

Before any "discussion" can take place, I feel I need an explanation as to each and every one of the accusations you made against me and why you made them. --Russavia 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire idea was to stop confrontation. But instead of doing just that, you accuse me and ask to provide evidence of your wrongdoings. Is that the way to peace? OK, I can provide evidence, but that is only because you demanded it. I am still not sure this is something we need...Biophys (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's briefly summarize a few events after your return from the block for harassment:

• my suggestion of peace
• your statement at ANI
• your statement to ArbCom ("Discussion of ethnicity by Biophys" at the bottom)
• reverting me in my own evidence section. Reverting me in different articles: ,
• Reporting me to Kirill, accusing me at unrelated talk page, accusing me at BLP. Then the disputed text was removed by me. But essentially the same text was reinserted by you.
• That are your plans for the future
• That was my final suggestion

Should we debate this publicly? I am not quite sure.Biophys (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of main evidence about you from ArbCom pages as a gesture of good will. What would be your response? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Response: Alexander Litvinenko/Vladimir Putin

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I appreciate you concerning me with this, but I've lost interest in that article and others that Biophys and his tag-teamers have their iron grip on. Edit-warring, arguing and debating with these people is a waste of time and I want nothing to do with it anymore. My new personal rules are to edit only when it's enjoyable, and not to engage in arguments or edit wars at all. See as far as I'm concerned, the credibility of wikipedia is already well out the window, so while I can do my best to put legit information into the encyclopedia, I will no longer attempt fight an impossible to win war against propaganda and misinformation. It's not about right or wrong, as you've probably realized. They have much more time and far better connections than I do, as is evident by my most recent block and the fact that my Krawndawg account was only accidentally "discovered" because of fishing and baseless accusations (which were proven to false) that never should have been given attention to in the first place. This place is pretty corrupt, I think my best bet is to stay out of the politics and the bottomless pit of bureaucracy and just stick to editing.

But that said, if you need any help with any other Russia or war related articles, I do think I can still enjoy editing sans the BS, and would be glad to help out. LokiiT (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)