Requests for comment/Russian Wikiversity Deletions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Outdated discussion. Reopen if not resolved yet. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete userpages created by ru.wikiversity admin[edit]

Please delete the following:

Local admin user:SergeyJ created these pages (containing "this user has a bad reputation") for me and several other Russian Wikipedia users simply as a way to retaliate against users who criticized Ru.Wikiversity in a recent Ru.Wikipedia RFC concerning linking to Ru.Wikiversity from articles (see his complain here). Most of us did not make any edits in Wikiversity (some contibs will show imported edits).

Then he decided to abuse wikimail as well, adding meaningless {hello} to user_talk pages of the same users, knowing very well that the default setting (like in many smaller projects) is to send user an email when user_talk is changed. His other actions are covered in foundation-l.

Considering all this, reasoning with SergeyJ is rather pointless; for the record, I already put {{delete}} on my user pages but was reverted by him. The only other local admin hasn't edited for a month.

If I were a steward, SergeyJ would be speedy desysopped already, but all I'm asking right now is to delete those pages. If possible, please delete other users' pages as well. Sorry for the long story, I guess had to explain why I need steward's help here.

-AlexSm 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested he delete the pages at ru:Обсуждение участника:SergeyJ. I expect that as he is a responsible admin, he will realize his error and remove commentary which is both defaming and a conflict of interest, given that he has prior ill feelings towards you. Preferably, whatever issues you two have can be ironed out and continue to work together constructively in the future. Kylu 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Созданные страницы - это стандартный способ высказать личные предупреждения или благодарности в Викиверситете. Я не вижу причин, почему я должен удалять предупреждения, которые я оставил пользователям по той или иной причине. У нас есть правило, согласно которому нахождение данного шаблона на страницах участника и возможность высказать свои замечания - обязательно. [1]. Возможно слово "репутация" не очень удачно и лучше подходит "оценка сообществом"
The created pages is a standard way to state personal preventions or thanks in Vikiversitete. I don't see the reasons why I should delete preventions which I have left to users for any of several reasons. We have a rule according to which the finding of the given template on pages of the participant and possibility to state the remarks - is obligatory. [2] The word "reputation" not so successfully is possible and is better the "estimation community" approaches SergeyJ 09:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory due to a policy that you solely created, even though administrators have an obligation to avoid conflicts of interest? Ignoring the template on his userpage, v:Участник:Alex_Smotrov/Предупреждения contains your commentary which does not pertain to actions on Wikiversity at all. The comment on his talkpage was created before he had edited there, also. He requested these pages be deleted, but you not only ignored the request but removed them. You'll forgive me if this seems to be a move of vengeance to me rather than simply "following the rules" since attention was brought to your having blocked him before he was able to make a single edit, previously. Kylu 11:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Данного участника никто не блокировал. В остальном я думаю Вы заблуждаетесь, поясню чуть позже. Nobody blocked the given participant. In the rest I think you be mistaken, I will explain a bit later. SergeyJ 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
У меня нет конфликта интересов с данным участником. Он лишь неэтично ввел себя в Википедии, затем стал делать голословные обвинения в адрес Викиверситета. За это его мог предупредить любой участник сообщества, и то что я являюсь администратором к этому не имеет отношения. Не я создавал правила, а сообщество. Даже если бы я имел конфликт интересов (чего нет) почему невозможно согласно общей политики проектов оставлять сообщения другим ?
I don't have conflict of interests to the given participant. It has only unethically entered itself(himself) into Wikipedias, then began to do unfounded charges to Wikiversity. Any of the community could warn him for this, and it doesn't matter if I am the administrator. It wasn't me who created the rules, but the community. Even if I would have the conflict of interests (that isn't the case) why it is impossible to leave a message to other users according to the general policy of the projects? SergeyJ 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you can leave a message, but you left him a warning about his conduct on Wikipedia, a completely different project. Administer your project based on the edits performed on that project, please. This said, wouldn't you agree that the warnings based on Wikipedia actions are inappropriate and then should be removed? Kylu 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Так дело только в том, что это касается другого проекта ? So has put only what it concerns other project? SergeyJ 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put warnings that apply to the project you're running, and give them the same leniency that you would be given on a different project. You're correct about the block, by the way... I was thinking of your block of Yaroslav Blanter, which had the reason "Угрозы, преследование участников: Оскорбления, не этичное поведение" - that terribly unreliable google translate says it's "Threats, harassment of participants: Insults, not ethical behavior" ... which don't seem to appear in his local contributions. Granted, I don't read Russian terribly well, but those look like template fixes, technical changes, and interwiki fixes. Kylu 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Тогда я не понимаю. Я ранее уже привлекал внимание к одному вопросу. Но мне сказали, что это личное дело локального проекта. В русской Википедии арбитражный коммитет не раз выносил решения, согласно которым участники были блокированы за действия вне проекта. Значит это не разрешено ? невозможно, нельзя ?
Then I don't understand. I already drew earlier attention to one question. But me have told that this private affair of the local project. In Russian Wikipedia the arbitration committee took out time and again decisions according to which participants have been blocked for actions out of the project. It means it is not authorized? It is impossible, it is impossible? SergeyJ 12:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Давайте попросим участника User:Millosh, чтобы он нам помог. Как я понял он понимает русский, и помог нам решить тогда вопрос с блокировкой Let's ask the participant User:Millosh that it has helped us. As I have understood it Russian understands, and has helped us to solve then a question with blocking SergeyJ 12:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make your comments made in Russian initially hidden, this is not a good way to maintain the conversation. -AlexSm 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for Millosh, then. My main concern was primarily that the warning seemed more politically based than being used to correct an issue on the local project. We could always open another RFC, if needed, I suppose. Kylu 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruwiki Arbcom blocked users for their actions in ruwiki, while their actions on other sites (sush as insults and coordinated wiki harrasment) were just additional factors. Me and Yaroslav Blanter (as I said above) did not make a single edit in Wikiversity before August 2010, what you see on contribs page is all imported edits from ruwiki. -AlexSm 13:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Далее я буду писать по русски. (Further I will write in Russian. If something not clearly specify.) Проводился опрос w:ru:Википедия:Опросы/Блокировки_за_действия_на_внешних_ресурсах, итога по которому до сих пор нету. А заблокированные арбкомом уже были не однократно. В английском есть w:en:Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment:. Я не вижу различий делается это вовне или участниками другого проекта. При этом напоминаю, что в данном случае речь идет даже не о блокировке, а просто о предупреждении. Если мы поступаем так или иначе - то одинаково, не создавая двойных стандартов. Ничто не мешает подвести итог w:ru:Википедия:Опросы/Блокировки_за_действия_на_внешних_ресурсах как было сказано "Ruwiki Arbcom blocked users for their actions in ruwiki, while their actions on other sites (sush as insults and coordinated wiki harrasment) were just additional factors." Но проблема в том, что сообщество явно высказалась вообще за невозможность блокировки, а некоторые администраторы до сих пор опротестовывают это. А пока нет правил арбком как и ранее имеет право блокировать за это, а не только выносить предупреждения. SergeyJ 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Все это конечно имеет косвенное отношение к данной узкой проблеме, но очевидным образом показывает, почему стало возможным предупреждать и блокировать за действия вне проекта, но наносящие вред проекту. SergeyJ 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Just a small comment. There was a poll some time ago in Russian Wikipedia about blocking for off-wikipedia actions. The issue is very controversial, so we formed a "committee" of 6 wikipedians that work on summing up the arguments. We are going to expose results of our analysis in early September. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can wait. And to borrow Wikipedia experience. SergeyJ 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that we let Millosh weigh in here, and then if there's more discussion, we set up a RFC and move this section to it? As silly as it may sound, I'd really like the admins of various projects to get along and not...this sort of thing. Alex and Sergey, do you think it's possible that we can end up with some sort of peace from this? I might suggest that some actions trying to placate the other parties might be reasonable. Kylu 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that I've noticed this, but that I will be able to read documents and policies at the morning (in ~12 hours). --Millosh 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Эта проблема не столь простая как может сразу показаться. Поэтому действительно нужен RFC. Я всегда стремлюсь решить вопросы мирно. И это возможно, если Вы (стюарды) обратите на это внимание. Я просто хочу ясного положения вещей, а не так что Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Если можно запрашивать удаление личных страниц, то для всех. Если нельзя делать предупреждения и основываться на правках в другом проекте - то для всех. Если Вы (стюарды) сформулируете эти принципы - то участникам локальных проектов будет значительно проще, не будет конфликтов. А в данном случае, я просто хотел бы, чтобы Alex Smotrov не искажал бы факты о викиверситете, и это было бы основанием для принятия правил. Это ведет только в конфронтации, а не к миру.
This problem not so simple as can seem at once. Therefore it is really necessary RFC. I always aspire to solve questions peacefully. And it is possible, if you (stewards) pay to this attention. I simply want a clear state of affairs, instead of so Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. If it is possible to request removal of personal pages, for all. If it is impossible to do preventions and to be based on editings in other project - that for all. If you (stewards) formulate these principles - that to participants of local projects will be much easier, there will be no conflicts. And in this case, I simply would like, that Alex Smotrov wouldn't distort the facts about Wikiversity, and it would be the basis for acceptance of rules. It conducts only in confrontation, instead of to the world. SergeyJ 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) SergeyJ 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this text is removed [4] I certainly will remove the prevention SergeyJ 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are offering to delete the pages as requested by Alex Smotrov if he retracts his comments on Is it really appropriate for an admin to seemingly spread a dispute from one project to another? Adambro 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here the administrator? My message is left as the usual participant who doesn't like distortion of the facts about Vikiversitete. SergeyJ 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Поясните тогда Вы, как я могу высказать замечание Alex Smotrov, что он сознательно искажает факты о Викиверситете ? Я ему высказал свое замечание, а конфликт создается им здесь, а не мной.
Explain then you how I can state remark Alex Smotrov, what he meaningly distorts the facts about Vikiversitete? I have stated it the remark, and the conflict is created by it here, instead of me. SergeyJ 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also I ask don't ignore my questions above. (И прошу не игнорируйте мои вопросы выше.) SergeyJ 18:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

russian Wikipedia against references on Wikiversity[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Closed, as suggested by SergeyJ and Kylu SergeyJ 09:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== War between russian Wikipedia and Wikiversity ==
  • Great way to assume good faith, Bolo1910. If you edit something that they don't like on Wikiversity, I'd be annoyed if they blocked you on Wikipedia, too. Project autonomy is great, but ultimately we're all supposed to be one large community, with (some) shared values and a sense of ethical fair play. Sadly, the latter tends to lack at times. Kylu 15:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think the section is constructive at all. Why not just not warn and block people for actions they took on other projects which have nothing to do with the project they're on? I suspect that characterizing this as a "war" is needlessly provocative and does little to instill peace and harmony between the projects. Please consider developing a solution instead. Kylu 17:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to solve a problem. Please stop escalating the issue and accusing me of being biased. Again, instead of adding to the conflict, please try to develop a peaceful solution and add it to the ideas below. If you're merely wanting to continue the concept of a "wiki war" and don't plan on being constructive, please let me know. Kylu 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я думаю нужно закрыть эту секцию. Нет ни каких проблем когда что то обсуждаю этично и без искажения фактов. Но не хорошо когда делают оскорбления, не этичные выпады или искажают факты. I think it is necessary to close this section. Isn't present what problems when that that I discuss ethically and without distortion of the facts. But it is not good when do insults, not ethic attacks or distort the facts. SergeyJ 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if this unrelated thread is closed; it already demonstrated the attitude to this issue from some Wikversity users. -AlexSm 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here really is, but solving all at once we won't solve any. SergeyJ 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential solutions[edit]

Allow courtesy blanking[edit]

  • Idea: As there is a policy (apparently) in place to forbid the deletion of archived pages, why not allow for courtesy blanking in certain circumstances, which would remove previous conflicts from being immediately visible, but would still be available in page history? Kylu 15:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be good to see whether the policy (if it exists) has been discussed by the community or just introduced ad hoc by the only active sysop, SergeyJ--Yaroslav Blanter 15:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a question first of all to ru. Wikipedija and the answer nobody has given to me. SergeyJ 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping both Russian Wikipedia and Wikiversity will both allow this. Are you willing to allow this if they do? Kylu 17:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my part objections won't be. SergeyJ 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Мы видим, что мой оппонент ниже не согласен. Я не могу ничего с этим поделать. We see that my opponent doesn't agree more low. I can't do anything with it. Again w:en:Status quo ? SergeyJ 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Я считаю, что эту дискуссию AlexSm использует не для разрешения проблем, а как способ давить на меня, фактически поощряя его поведение которое он ведет в отношении Викиверситета.
I consider that this discussion AlexSm uses not for resolution of problems and as a way to press on me, actually encouraging its behavior which it conducts concerning Wikiversitety. SergeyJ 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard SergeyJ asking ruwiki admins to delete his archive talk pages. This is not an issue: he can blank the pages and instead put links to revisions; for example, I use this method on my talk pages.
The problem is, he came up with this "condition" just to distract everybody, because there is a HUGE difference between user talk archives and, on the other hand, user pages, especially created with ill intentions, plus one user talk with insincere {hello} used fo sole purpose of spamming my wikimail.
-AlexSm 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can archive the pages in Wikiversity. But after all you don't want it. SergeyJ 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave the reference [6]. SergeyJ 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References to remote archives aren't necessary to me what that, and you to it force me. SergeyJ 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I think should pass at least some days for an archiving, and AlexSm wanted them to remove for the absurd reason "vandalism" SergeyJ 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested archive removal (w:ru:Обсуждение_участника:SergeyJ/Архив/1), we will look, whether will create it for me problems. SergeyJ 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your "arguments" are simply beyond absurdity again. 1) There is Nothing To Archive On My Talk Page, I never heard of a project that would force archiving of the {hello} template. 2) We are also talking about 2 user pages (not talk); using my user pages for discussions is your own "invention" that I do NOT want to use. 3) Do not pretend that you do not understand the difference between blanking and deletion, and that you do need links to old discussions on your talk page. -AlexSm 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Я еще раз вынужден вам напомнить, что в Викиверситете создание предупреждений через шаблон репутации - это стандартный способ. I am once again compelled to remind you that in wikiversity сreation of preventions through a reputation template is a standard way. SergeyJ 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Более того эти сообщения нельзя архивировать, но я шел вам на уступки, учитывая то, что вы не будите продолжать поведение, приведшие к данной дискуссии. Moreover these messages can't be archived, but I went to you on concessions, considering that you don't awake to continue the behavior, led to the given discussion. SergeyJ 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Получается, что Вы AlexSm сказали не правду, так как мне было отказано в удалении архивов.
  • It turns out that you AlexSm have told not truth as to me it has been refused at a distance archives. [7] SergeyJ 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can we have a discussion if SergeyJ is not even trying to understand other's comments? Again: in ruwiki links to old discussions have to be present on the user talk page (I never said otherwise); blanking means making an edit that removes all content from the current version of the page, leaving the history intact, this is NOT the same as page deletion. -AlexSm 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here now me have accused of trolling ... It here is considered normal behavior? SergeyJ 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completly ignoring other people's answers and pretending that you do not understand something obvious is trolling, don't you agree? -AlexSm 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I so don't do. SergeyJ 23:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
А вот большая часть моих ответов и вопросов как раз была проигнорирована. And here the most part of my answers and questions has just been ignored. SergeyJ 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Кроме того, вы пишите мне на английском, хорошо зная, что я им не владею .. и позволяете себе говорить, что я притворяюсь ? Это прекрасно поведение, у меня больше нет комментариев ...
Besides, you write to me in English, well knowing that I don't own it. Also dare to say, what I pretend to be? It is fine behavior, I don't have comments more... SergeyJ 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make for me then as you offered, that I have definitively understood. SergeyJ 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Факт остается фактом, не в Википедии, не в Викиверситете - нельзя полностью требовать удаления страниц обсуждения и страницу участника, а так же ссылок на архив. Это мы сейчас точно выяснили, хотя раньше, скорее всего, не полностью понимали. Я не очень понимал правила Википедии, AlexSm не очень понимал правила Викиверситета. И я не понимаю, почему мы это продолжаем обсуждать?
  • The fact remains, not in Wikipedia, not in Wikiversity - it is impossible to demand completely removal of pages of discussion and page of the participant, and as references to archive. We now have precisely found out it, though earlier, most likely, not completely understood. I not so understood Wikipedia rules, AlexSm not so understood rules of Vikiversiteta. And I don't understand, why we continue to discuss it? SergeyJ 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a unique exception ru:Википедия:Право исчезнуть SergeyJ 23:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Without sounding too much like a new-age shrink wanting us to have a group hug and sing Kumbaya together, I think it would offer interesting results if we had a brief explanation from everyone involved as to how willing they are to compromise, what position they bring to the discussion, and if they're actually dedicated to solving this problem. I've seen many RFCs broken because people on both sides refuse to budge and argue endlessly about how their side is "correct" and nobody wants to give ground. I think it's fair to ask that if someone isn't willing to try to help solve the problem and instead simply place blame, that they don't belong here with the people who are here to help. Kylu 04:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the section is my creation, I'll make the first statement. I'm a steward, both willing and able to implement a decision that we come to which respects Foundation policies. I don't want to see another RFC bogged down in mindless arguments until it's years later and everyone has quit from disgust. I don't want to be an arbitrator handing down decrees, as I did not get elected for that position. I am willing to offer suggestions, and I don't really see that there can't be some sort of solution to the problem. Kylu 04:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here very difficult text, I can't understand it, if who can I ask to explain in Russian. SergeyJ 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I though about what I can do - basically nothing. Both AlexSm and me and ru.wp administrators, and our function is, in particular, to check that existing policies are enforced. None of us can make a new policy. I can abstain from blocking SergeyJ at the next incident, but he will be blocked anyway by another administrator. We are not in a position to negociate for instance policy for policy - for instance if SergeyJ would relax a policy on ru.wv by seeking consensus of three users, we can not relax or adopt a policy because consensus of a hundred users on ru.wp would be required. Until some meta-wide policies have been adopted and/or implemented it really looks to me like a dead end.--Yaroslav Blanter 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]



As the thread has been moved to RFC it is clear for me that it will never lead to any reasonable decision, so that I am not really looking forward. Just to remark that in my opinion the best solution would be to desysop SergeyJ in the same way it was done to Ramir in Russian Wikibooks a couple of years ago. Obviously until it has been done he would continue to behave as if he is a dictator and the pages would never be deleted even despite the fact they violate the general WMF-wide policies.--Yaroslav Blanter 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now you've graduated to direct threats? Good move!Bolo1910 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • general WMF-wide policies - вот о это такой политике я выше спрашивал не однократно, ясных ответов мне никто не дал. Наоборот, было ранее сказано, что это дело локальных проектов. Here it is to such policy I above asked not unitary, clear answers nobody has given to me. On the contrary, it has been earlier told that this business local the project. SergeyJ 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting or promoting this position, just clarifying that a desysop in itself would not solve the problem. The pages are still there, yes? So even if this was, somehow, the chosen solution, the pages would also need to be removed or blanked. I assume SergeyJ has no interest in having his rights removed, so wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that he (and the rest of ru.wv) would be willing to compromise and discuss first? Removal of rights really should be a last resort. Kylu 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish[edit]

I see that Meta's right to vanish is not described as a universal Wikimedia policy, but only as one affecting "most" projects. This seems to have a theoretical flaw, as revealed here, in that any autonomous Wikimedia project can create a page about an editor's "reputation", based on his other edits, perhaps showcasing them, and then it is impossible for the editor to truly vanish, because this untoward remnant lives on.

Given the move toward globally unified logins, it may be time to require the right to vanish as a formal Meta policy. Or, more conservatively, editors should at least be given the right to "vanish" from all projects to which they have not contributed, and to receive fair warning before making fresh edits to a project that does not recognize the right to vanish, that by doing so they forfeit this right. Wnt 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Дело в том, что в данном конкретном случае AlexSm не желает исчезнуть, иначе этот запрос был бы уже удовлетворен и проблемы не было.
The matter is that in given concrete case AlexSm doesn't wish to disappear, differently this inquiry would be already satisfied also problems wasn't. SergeyJ 20:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me if I misunderstood - I thought that AlexSm wanted to participate in ru.wikipedia but not ru.wikiversity. I don't really understand the full issue on the Russian projects, but I see this as a potential shortcoming in the English "right to vanish" policy on Meta. Wnt 05:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To speak and do - different things SergeyJ 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply ridiculous. I never even participated in Ru.Wikiversity, so there is no way I can "vanish" from this project. -AlexSm 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's this? "Never participated?" Seb az86556 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have all been imported from Russian Wikipedia. The same is with mine edits: I have zero edit count on Russian Wikiversity, but still my contribution shows smth (it even shows I have protected a template even though I obviously never had a sysop flag).--Yaroslav Blanter 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Makes sense; thus, to be continued (see below). Seb az86556 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC appearance[edit]

I am asking SergeyJ again to initially hide or at least surround with <small> tag his comments made in Russian. It's rather difficult and boring to read the same thing it 2 languages and I think he could certainly show some respect for other users. -AlexSm 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether disturbs to stewards that I write in Russian? SergeyJ 18:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, this disturbs everybody. The only purpose of your "double" messages I can think of is when someone would try to correct you English translation (as Drbug did), and hidden text would serve this purpose just as well. -AlexSm 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't disturb me. I'm happy to see users post in bilingual texts if they are unsure of their skills in the main language of the conversation or are using computer translation, and hate to discourage that by insisting they use technical tricks on one.--Prosfilaes 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would also be nice if SergeyJ used "Show preview" button once in a while and not waste my time on edit conflicts, but I guess that's asking too much of him. -AlexSm 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3[edit]

Let me summarize the raised issues.

  1. SergeyJ invented the "reputations system" where users give each other "good" or "bad" reputation saved on user page and subpages (I guess his views are quite opposite to en:WP:Social networking essay). SergeyJ is using his sysop flag to force other users to use this sytem. That's why he insists that those page are in some way "talk archives" as well.
    I absolutely oppose using this system on my user pages: those pages should be deleted.
  2. SergeyJ issues "warnings" to user accounts (of absolutely inactive users) about users "behaviour" in other Wikimedia projects.
    While this is certainly inappropriate (especially for admin) I'm willing to compromise here: let SergeyJ issue me "warnings" on my talk page, I'm just not going to bother reading them.
  3. SergeyJ made two retaliation blocks (also of locally inactive SUL accounts). One block was removed, but ru:user:Wind, ruwiki admin, bureaucrat and checkuser still remains blocked.
    Since this is RFC now, I think this issue needs to be addressed as well and Wind should be unblocked (alternative: SergeyJ desysopped and then Wind unblocked).

-AlexSm 05:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Все это я уже пояснял, нужно ли мне дать еще какие то пояснения ? I all it already explained, whether it is necessary for me to give still what that explanatories? SergeyJ 08:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"reputations system" была принята сообществом Викиверситета, поддержана 7 из 9 человек и до сих пор ни у одного нового участника не вызывала проблем. Это система репутаций позволяет нам в сообществе Викиверситета жить мирно и быть ответственным за свои слова и действия. Это безусловно хорошо сказывается при разрешении проблем в целом. Поэтому эксперимент можно считать успешным, наоборот, он выявил тех участников которые хотят вести себя не этично, вступать в конфликты и не желают решать проблемы. Я просил данного участника только не искажать факты о Викиверситете, а вместо этого он желает обсуждать мой desysopp. Я считают это недопустимое поведение. С участником Wind отдельная проблема и я не думаю что это нужно смешивать и обсуждать здесь.
"reputations system" Has been accepted by community Wikiversity, it is supported 7 of 9 persons and till now in one new participant didn't cause problems. It is system of reputations allows us to live in community Wikiversity peacefully and to be responsible for the words and actions. It certainly well affects at resolution of problems as a whole. Therefore it is possible to consider experiment successful, on the contrary, it has revealed those participants which want to behave not ethically, to enter conflicts and don't wish to solve a problem. I asked the given participant not to distort only the facts about Wikiversity, and instead he wishes to discuss mine desysopp. I consider this inadmissible behavior. With participant Wind a separate problem and I don't think that it needs to be mixed and discussed here. SergeyJ 09:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Отдаленно связанная - он организовал attack page на Викиверситет в полуофициальном блоге Википедии, 
   и отказался удалить оскорбления, не этичные и провокационные комментарии 
2. Нет у меня не было с ним конфронтации
3. Не думаю, что система репутации используется где то еще
1. Remotely connected - it has organized attack page on Wikiversity in a semiofficial blog of Wikipedia, 
   also has refused to remove insults, not ethic and provocative comments
2. Isn't present at me there was no with it a confrontation
3. I do not think that the reputation system is used where that still

SergeyJ 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to 1. Please explain 3, I don't understand. Thank you. Kylu 03:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links v:ru:Викиверситет:Портал_сообщества#w:Википедия:Опросы/Ссылки на Викиверситет, [8], [9], [10]
reputation system it is accepted in Ru.Wikiversity. I don't know about other projects SergeyJ 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmail from SergeyJ[edit]

Please note this message from SergeyJ. He "agreed" to remove MY user pages if I "vanish" from the project. Note that vanishing means never returning to the project (he translated it into "Wikiversity rule" so he knows that very well). What he's trying to do is to exchange "my users pages" (created just to harass me) for my promise never to participate in Ru.Wikiversity.
The question is: why am I the only one to point out how ridiculous this "offer" is?. -AlexSm 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this RfC would have more people discussing it, especially those of the various Russian Wikimedia projects. Would it be an acceptable proposal to request those from the Russian projects to visit and give their opinions on the matter? Kylu 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I would not want to waste so much time of other users, considering how much off-topic SergeyJ wrote so far just to distract everyone from the issue. Seriously, is it that difficult for SergeyJ just to remove my user pages and put whatever rubbish he wants to say on my user talk page, without his "reputation system" nonsense? -AlexSm 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • С двух одно: или участник участвует и подчиняется правилам проекта, или не участвует, явно об этом указывая. About two one: or the participant participates and submits to project rules, or doesn't participate, is obvious about it specifying. SergeyJ 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

block AlexSm[edit]

  • AlexSm заблокирован бессрочно за неоднократное удаление содержимого личных страниц, и добавления на свою страницу обвинений, несоответствующих действительности. После блокировки страницы пользователя удалены. Не вижу смысла продолжать данную дискуссию. Если человек не может и не хочет корректно себя вести, тут не о чем обсуждать. Участник может быть разблокирован если прекратит деструктивное поведение.
  • AlexSm it is blocked it is termless for numerous removal of contents of personal pages, and additions on the page of the charges inappropriate to the validity. After blocking of page of the user are removed. I do not see sense to continue the given discussion. If the person can't and doesn't want correctly itself to conduct, here there is nothing to discuss. The participant can be unblocked if stops destructive behavior. SergeyJ 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding blocks and bans and desysops: This early in the discussions, if you absolutely need blocks and that sort of thing done, and you all agree that it's the only way to bring peace, please understand that all parties will be affected on ru.wikiversity. It wouldn't be fair to try to penalize one party over another before we've worked on any of the solutions. Kylu 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Если бы участник конструктивно обсуждал здесь - этого не было бы. Но он решил провоцировать, добавляя теперь на свою страницу обвинения.
    • If the participant structurally discussed here - it wouldn't be. But he has decided to provoke, adding now on the page of charge. SergeyJ 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Возможно Вы не видели текст, который он добавил ? Я могу восстановить страницу по вашему требованию ... и если нужно - пояснить как он высмеивает и обвиняет администраторов
    • Probably you didn't see the text which he has added? I can restore page under your requirement... And if it is necessary - to explain as it derides and accuses admin SergeyJ 16:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Я удивляюсь почему я должен тут пояснять простой случай неэтичного поведения, в результате чего я вынес предупреждение, а при повторных нарушениях заблокировал ? Почему мы обсуждаем что угодно, но не поведение AlexSm, которое является причиной всего этого ?
    • I am surprised why I should explain here a simple case of unethical behavior therefore I have taken out the prevention, and at repeated infringements have blocked? Why we discuss everything, but not behavior AlexSm, which is at the bottom of all it? SergeyJ 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was denied the option to delete MY user page, I added the note that this page was created by a local admin (true) just to harass me for my opinion in Wikipedia (true). There was nothing unethical on my part. Since SergeyJ gone completely wild with his sysop flag, can we move to desysop as a resolution now? -AlexSm 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Это опять не соответствует истине, будем смотреть что на самом деле написал AlexSm ? Это была намеренная провокация, чтобы усложнить конфликт и начать разговор о desysops.
It again doesn't correspond to true, we will look that actually has written AlexSm? It was intended provocation to complicate the conflict and to begin conversation about desysops. SergeyJ 19:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously support this suggestion.--Yaroslav Blanter 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just so I understand the stance/procedure here: Administrators on Ru.wikiversity can create userpages at will for people who never participated at ru.wikiversity, and the pages they create say something like "This user is untrustworthy/a liar/an asshole".
When the user adds his/her comment saying "I am not", the user will be blocked indefinitely, the page will be restored, and there is no form of recourse/protest/objection.
Fantastic. The KGB would be proud of you guys.
Seb az86556 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Вы понимаете совершенно не правильно и искажаете то, что я пояснял. You understand absolutely not correctly and deform that I explained. SergeyJ 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that users dislike the idea of being forced to have a userpage and discussion regarding their behavior, and especially blocks based on such information, on a project in which they have not participated. If it's what is going to resolve the conflict, I can request greater input from the global community on these matters. Kylu 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Вы можете спросить у глобального сообщества допустимы ли оскорбления, обвинения, искажение информации и другое не этичное поведение участниками одного проекта по отношению к другому ? Если глобальное сообщество скажет, что это допустимо - я аннулирую все свои локальные решения.
Whether you can ask global community insults, charges, distortion of the information and another not ethic behavior participants of one project in relation to another are admissible? If the global community tells that it is admissible - I cancel all my local decisions. SergeyJ 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to be an administrator, not a moral-values-and-reputation-protector. What people say about your project elsewhere really shouldn't be of concern to you. Do you think English wikipedia blocks anyone who is critical of it on the various blogs and forums that exist in the world? Damn, they'd have a lot to do... Seb az86556 21:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я думаю, что проблемы английского Викиверситета, с вмешательством Джимбо как раз основаны на том, что участники английской Википедии не довольны тем, что о них говорят в английском Викиверситете. Тут же все наоборот ...
  • I think that problems of English Vikiversity, with intervention of Dzhimbo are just based that participants of English Wikipedia aren't happy with that speak about them in English Wikiversity. There and then all on the contrary ... SergeyJ 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я уже писал, что и русская и английская Википедия не просто предупреждают, но блокируют за поведение на других форумах и прочих внешних ресурсах.
  • I already wrote, as Russian and English Wikipedia not simply I warn, but block for behavior at other forums and other external resources. SergeyJ 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General question[edit]

I need something to be clarified: Is ru.wikiveristy a separate project or rather a sub-project to ru.wikipedia? Seb az86556 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ru.wikiveristy - separate project SergeyJ 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. So, in general, what business do you have giving any comments on someone who never participated? Seb az86556 10:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC) wait. strike that. Alex, What this? Seb az86556 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
98% It is import SergeyJ 10:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Look my comment (SergeyJ 12:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)) SergeyJ 10:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Его комментарий, за который я высказал предупреждение, касался Викиверситета. Хотя он и был сделан в Википедии, это не может быть причиной распространять ложные представления о Викиверситете.
Its comment for which I have stated the prevention, concerned Wikiversity. Though it also has been made in Wikipedia, it can't cause to extend false representations about Wikiversity. SergeyJ 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So they were only imports, and not really contributions. Therefore, in general, what business do you have giving any comments on someone who never participated? Seb az86556 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above I already have answered. SergeyJ 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think your stance, in general, is acceptable. Seb az86556 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain. Suggest how in the present state of affairs correctly to arrive more low? SergeyJ 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what should we do after the stewards basically have refused to act.--Yaroslav Blanter 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how we are to resolve the situation while obeying the edicts of the position as given in the steward policy? Unfortunately, that sword cuts both ways. Stewards are technical folk and not dispute resolution functionaries. What you really need is a global arbcom of some sort to manage these disputes, I'd think. Kylu 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Russian Wikiversity would immediately opt out of the global arbcom scope because SergeyJ know he will be desysopped immediately after the Global Arbcom has been put in place. This story goes for ages, the original Global Arbcom suggestion has been castrated many times and I am not sure even the current suggestion (Dispute resolution committee) has any chances. I wrote to foundation-l a week ago (when I was blocked for 6 months) and I was told it is nobody's business. Well, let it be like this.--Yaroslav Blanter 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Что произошло ? What has happened?[edit]

так как тут начинаются недопонимания я воссоздам картину происходящего. Прошу в данном разделе не комментировать. SergeyJ 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As not the understanding I here begins I will recreate an event picture. Ask in given section not to make comments. Here the chronological order of that has occurred is described. If I am necessary I can make autotransfer or you can use autotransfer.

  • 15 августа. AlexSm в опросе в Википедии w:ru:Википедия:Опросы/Ссылки на Викиверситет отвечает участнику Викиверситета goga312, дословно написав: "Под видом «исследований» у вас публикуются нападки на сообщество Википедии и на некоторые категории участников, а также графоманские опусы заблокированых в Википедии участников. Хочется ссылок на более-менее нормальный проект, где такого явного мусора просто нет."
  • 19 августа. Я как администратор Викиверситета обеспокоен, что о Викиверситете распространяются мнения, мягко говоря, не соответствующие истине. Об этом я информирую других участников Викиверситета [11]
  • 19 августа. (позже). Ситуация усложняется, и в полуофициальном блоге Википедии открывается attack page на Викиверситет, в котором разные участники оскобляют участников Викиверситета, и формируют о нем нелепые представления. Желая наверное при этом закрыть Викиверситет под надуманными предлогами. Но это конкретно AlexSm не касается.
  • 20-21 августа. Мы (3 участника) формируем рабочие правило v:ru:Викиверситет:Положение о репутации Викиверситета, в котором указывается, что недопустимо искажать информацию о Викиверситете и голословно обвинять участников в чем либо. При этом мы принимаем конструктивную критику, где соблюдается этичность.
  • 21 августа. Я выношу личное предупреждение, участнику AlexSm. Дословно: Вы предупреждаетесь за искажение фактов в w:Википедия:Опросы/Ссылки_на_Викиверситет: Под видом «исследований» у вас публикуются нападки на сообщество Википедии и на некоторые категории участников, а также графоманские опусы заблокированных в Википедии участников. Делаю это согласно нашей политике о репутации участников.
  • 22 августа. AlexSm делает запрос на удаление, указывая причину "создана для вандализма". Таким образом, обвиняя меня в вандализме.
  • 23 августа. Я поясняю, что страница не может быть удалена, и откатываю правки AlexSm.
  • 30 августа. Так как AlexSm здесь не однократно заявлял, что он не хочет участвовать в Викиверситете, то я ему предлагаю: "Страница участника не может быть удалена, Вам это уже пояснялось. Если Вы не хотите участвовать в данном сообществе, Вы можете поставить на страницу участника и СО шаблон Template:Участник покинул проект"
  • Вместо этого участник размещает на своей странице текст: Эта страница была создана так называемым «охранителем» проекта исключительно с целью преследования этого участника Википедии. Участник SergeyJ отказывается удалить эту страницу участника, злоупотребляя выданным ему флагом администратора.
  • Кроме того очищает свою страницу обсуждения с причиной trolling. Таким образом, он обвиняется меня еще в троллинге.
  • Итого AlexSm обвинил Викиверситет в целом, что мы нападаем на Википедию (хотя я таких фактов не знаю, и это скорее всего ложь), обвинил меня в целом в вандализме, троллинге, преследовании, высмеивая меня назвал меня «охранителем». Поэтому я счел возможным заблокировать его в Викиверситете.
  • Теперь сравним, его не этичное поведение AlexSm с другим участником? который в сходной ситуации просто пояснил, что "На всякий случай поясняю, что никогда не участвовал, не участвую в настоящее время и не буду участвовать впредь в этом проекте. Данная страница была создана в автоматическом режиме без моего ведома и участия." [12]. Притензий к данному участнику ни каких более не было, я высказал ему свои соображения, он их проигнорировал ... но в отличии от AlexSm не стал вести себя не этично.

Questions to SergeyJ[edit]

  • Я считаю, что на данный момент дал полноценные и разносторонние ответы на вопросы. Единственная проблема, что возможно эти ответы не структурированы, и разбросаны по разным местам. Я не думаю, что имеет смысл уделять не этическому поведению AlexSm дополнительное внимание. Но если Вы имеете ко мне вопросы, прошу их задавать в этой секции. Мне сложно следить за дискуссией. Кроме вопросов, прошу также дать ваши рекомендации как мне нужно было бы поступить в такой ситуации, если бы Вы были на моем месте.
  • I consider that have at present given high-grade and versatile answers to questions. A unique problem that is possible these answers aren't structured, and are scattered in different places. I don't think that it makes sense to give not to ethical behavior AlexSm additional attention. But if you have to me questions, I ask them to set in this section. It is difficult to me to watch discussion. Except questions, I ask to make also your recommendations as I would need to arrive in such situation if you were on my place. SergeyJ 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't understand two things in Russian Wikiversity policies:

  1. Is it really needed to create userpages for users with 0 contributions to post warnings there? All projects use talk pages for that purpose + as a rule, a userpage can be edited only by its owner. Why is Russian Wikiversity completely different, as user is not allowed to edit his own page there?
  2. It looks like you (SergeyJ) have proposed We do not pay any attention to what is happening on other resources (Что происходит на внешних ресурсах мы не видим и не знаем.) as a local policy (local discussion). Why are you blocking users who never edited Wikiversity and left their comments on, yes, other resources? — NickK 22:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. And where you suggest to warn such users?
  2. Probably I was mistaken in that opinion. And I am ready to wait a result on that poll in Wikipedia, and to adopt their experience. SergeyJ 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Хочу обратить внимание на такой вопрос. В викиверситете есть такое положение в правилах: "Материалы Викиверситета пересекаются с другими проектами Викимедиа, но эти пересечения должны привести к интеграции и взаимодействию, а не к соревнованию или дублированию." Мы ссылаемся на статьи Википедии, взаимодействуем так или иначе с этим сообществом в рамках meta-wiki. Поэтому говорить, что мы ни как не связаны с Википедией - это не совсем верно. Да у нас другие правила, другая стратегия развития, и опубликованы другие материалы. Но между ними есть связь. Когда группа участников Википедии начинает распространять неверные представления о викиверситете, не этично относится к участникам Викиверситета и целенаправленно удалять ссылки на материалы Викиверситета - это заставляет задуматься. Очевидно, нужно выразить несогласие к такому отношению к Викиверситету. Делая это в Википедии - это игнорируется, более того есть риск, что тебя не за что там заблокируют (как не раз уже было со мной). Поэтому Википедия и ее полуофициальный блог - это ни какие-то внешние ресурсы, это проект с которым согласно правилам Викиверситета и Википедии, нужно сотрудничать как с братскими проектами. Но из-за 10-20 участников Википедии это становится не возможным. На meta-wiki нам говорят, что это не их дело. Тогда мы начинаем сами заботится о своей репутации и решать эти вопросы как умеем. Если у Вас есть лучшие средство - прошу изложите.
  • I Want to pay attention to such question. In Wikiversity there is such position in rules: "Materials of Wikiversity are crossed with other projects of Vikimedia, but these crossings should lead to integration and interaction, instead of to competition or duplication." We refer to Wikipedia articles, we cooperate anyhow with this community in frameworks meta-wiki. Therefore to say that we as aren't connected with Wikipedia it isn't absolutely true. Yes at us other rules, other strategy of development, also are published other materials. But between them there is a communication. When the group of participants of Wikipedia starts to extend incorrect representations about Wikiversity, to offend community Wikiversity, and purposefully to delete references to materials of Wikiversity is sets thinking. Obviously, it is necessary to express disagreement to such relation to Wikiversity. Doing it in Wikipedia is it is ignored, moreover there is a risk that you there is nothing there will block (as time and again already was with me). Therefore Wikipedia and its semiofficial blog is any external resources, it is the project with which Wikiversity according to rules and Wikipedia, it is necessary to cooperate as with brotherly projects. But because of 10-20 participants of Wikipedia it becomes not possible. On meta-wiki to us say that it not their business. Then we begin cares of the reputation and to solve these questions as we are able. If you have the best means - ask state. SergeyJ 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your model is wrong. There is very big difference between criticism of the project and criticism of its users. What ruwiki poll deals with is trolling, harassment and systematic attacks at external resources. I am not going to discuss which comments and which resources are considered such 'attack resources', but the purpose of these comments is not to criticise the whole resource, but just some of its users/policies etc. If it is made in highly uncivil form at some other site, yes, local project can take some measures against this user. But the project criticism is a different thing. Comments like "The project X violates NPOV/has low educational value/has very little information/is inactive etc" are unpleasant for users of these projects, but they can write some counterarguments, publish their point of view or try to improve the project and deal with the problems, but not to block all the users who criticise the project. Blocking users who've never edited some project is something strange. Imagine that admins of Volapuk Wikipedia look through village pumps of different projects, find users who accuse vowiki of having too little information and block them in vowiki. Will it be normal or not? I suppose one should not respond to the criticism like you did, block is not the best way to close the project. Thus, criticising a project and calling someone an idiot are different things and require different reactions — NickK 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо, я думаю Вы во многом правы. Но давайте по очереди попробуем отличить где критика, а где не этичное поведение. Тогда Вы согласитесь, что Yaroslav Blanter [13] оскорбил меня лично и был заблокирован согласно вашей логике. И тут я как администратор Викиверситета поступил правильно ?
Thanks, I think you in many respects are right. But let's by turns try distinguish where the critic, and where not ethic behavior. Then you agree that Yaroslav Blanter [14] has offended me personally and has been blocked according to your logic. And here I as manager Vikiversiteta have arrived correctly? SergeyJ 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Since the request is due to be soon archived, I would like to remark that nothing has been resolved. Even though my former account was unblocked thanks to intervention of User:Millosh, to whom I am deeply grateful, the abusive policies are still in place. In the meanwhile, SergeyJ was banned from Russian Wikipedia for gross violations, and the decision was upheld by the Arbitration Committee, so he just continues to rule his own kingdom at Russian Wikiversity.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]