Talk:Alexander Misharin

Untitled
N.B. User:Ssr is a PR person working for A.S.Misharin. He was previously involved into the whitewashing scandal on Russian Wikipedia. Gritzko (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NB User:Gritzko apparently continues an alleged "counter-PR campaign" that started in Russian Wikipedia and led to freezing of the corresponding Russian article due to hard non-neutral nature of that campaign. The case need a third-party dispute resolution, User:Gritzko's aim is in the making the article biased on political grounds, so this need to be dealt with. --ssr (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NB the latter addition of the phrase "He was previously involved into the whitewashing scandal on Russian Wikipedia" (which was not a "scandal" but a POV dispute with lawful appealings to administrators) is most probably a part of the same "black-washing" procedure of using Wikipedia for political struggle, using a website that mostly publishes criticism. I did not start those disputes that Gritzko, a long-time "campaigner", calls a "scandal", I try to counter the attacks that appeared months ago without my participation and that made the corresponding Russian article highly non-NPOV. Russian article finally was blocked from editing by admins and awaits mediation, I feel this article needs third-party mediation too. There is minimal chance of the dispute being resolved without that, the "campaigners" are very harsh in their methods. E. g. look at what Gritzko wrote about myself in the article: "In April 2011, A.S.Misharin's PR person was caught doctoring his employer's Wikipedia article. As a result, the article was edit-protected.[9]" — 1) was not "caught doctoring" but was legally using Russian Wikipedia procedures to counter POV-pushing 2) the source cited did not say that "As a result, the article was edit-protected" — the article was not protected when the source was published, it was protected later due to my own appeals to admins — so that, the sentence itself is an obvious "doctoring". Generally, all content of the the "Controversies" section, that Gritzko inserted, is aimed to politically harrass the political figure. No neutral or positive information is written, only negative, and only some particular selected-out episodes, not some kind of analysis of overall political activity. Because this is continuous politically biased POV-pushing brought here from Russian Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you add some positive info? It's your job! Let's make it a featured article! Gritzko (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please notice the tone of this sentence. The user is likely to perform some "trolling" that I was talking about. First, we have to remove his libelous content before proceeding. --ssr (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Attention Russian language speakers: Look what Gritzko writes in Twitter on the case. This can probably be viewed as a possible indication of a planned trolling. --ssr (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything I added to the article is in full accordance with WP:WELLKNOWN. All listed facts are backed up by references to publications in top Russian periodicals. It is not my fault that Gov Misharin is mostly famous because of all that scandals. I doubt I listed even half of those. What also comes to mind: Sagra shootings, Korotkevich affair, blind man TV story and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, adding more of that would make the article look bad. Gritzko (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Top Russian periodicals" can be called about 10-15% of the sources listed, most other are local press, sometimes tabloids and/or websites systematically used to publish "black PR". The "blind man TV" episode is generally not notable and a clear indicator that Gritzko is involved in WP:COI (see Russian talk page). "Sagra shootings" and "Korotkevich affair" are not directly related to the person's biography. The information on "PR person was caught doctoring" is complete untruth, see above. Gritzko should not be allowed to edit this article as soon as he uses such arguments. His contributions make the article non-NPOV, no profit for Wikipedia, but a "black PR"-style misuse of Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I reference the following sources: Those are literally top Russian periodicals (except for dkvartal, which is regional). Maybe, Vedomosti is missing from the list, but I think I may find something at Vedomosti as well. Gritzko (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * rbc.ru (hispeed train)
 * Kommersant and RBC (billboard campaign)
 * Деловой Квартал (Mercedes scandal) - well, this journal is regional, but it is by no means a "tabloid" or "black PR site"
 * Nezavisimaya_Gazeta (the wiki scandal)
 * АиФ (Innoprom)
 * Russian reporter (embezzling scandal)
 * Local Kommersant and local AiF (a tabloid). For some information further or previous disclaimers were published, some is unrelated directly to the governor and is not actually biographical or significant (e. g. on "person caught doctoring" — not "caught", not "doctoring" (and the source doesn't say so, but Gritzko presents it as it does), and generally not significant). There are plenty of various episodes related to governing activity of the person. Gritzko, a long-time "oppositional critic", along with his "team", only publishes some selected-out, taken out of context, "scandals" (in his terminology) only with a certain point of view (is simply harshly POV-pushing). He and his "team" are abusing Wikipedia mechanisms (Russian and English) on political grounds. So that I try to remove their "black PR" assuming I am involved in COI (see also Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard). The whole problem with these Russian and English articles did not occur because of me, it is a result of long-time actions of the "team", some of whose members are also hiding their identity in ru-wikipedia while I am an openly-declared COI party. --ssr (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "team"? You are fantasizing Gritzko (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular issue at the time concerns Russian Wikipedia, so the details are there. --ssr (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the "Controversies" section on November, 1
I am removing the "Controversies" section written by user Gritzko who is also edit-warring over it. There was a COI dispute over this section: see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_52. The dispute ivolved independent analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia. The analysis, made by user Ezhiki, concluded: ""That said, I do not believe there is no place for a "controversy" section in that article at all. While ssr's removal of the section seems to be more or less in line with our BLP guidelines, I do have my doubts he has the interests of Wikipedia above his job duties. When properly re-written and sourced, a "controversy" section would be a good addition to the article; but in the state ssr removed it, it is indeed mostly (but not completely) a BLP violation. This section should be written by someone who is capable of writing it from a neutral standpoint, and sadly I don't think either Gritzko or ssr qualify. Until a person willing to do that job appears, I would recommend the complete removal of that section.""

At COI noticeboard, independent mediator OlYeller21 said: ""If I had to summarize, it seems that Ezhiki feels that much of the section is synthesis and until it can be rewritten by an uninvolved editor, it should be removed from the BLP. Bottom line, neither party seems to be totally neutral on the subject and the references used leave some things up to interpretation and/or are not neutral themselves. While there's a strong possibility of a COI with Ssr, Gritzko may be pushing a POV as well. An admin may need to take action at this point.""

So that, the section should be removed until it is written by an uninvolved editor, as the analysis suggested. I tried to remove it, but Gritzko keeps inserting it and is edit-warring over it. OlYeller21 said that "an admin may need to take action at this point". Ultimately, according to this, I now remove the Gritzko-written "Controversies" section and if he continues edit war, I will appeal to admins to stop him.

Additionally, Gritzko in the article body tried to portray personally myself as "A.S.Misharin's PR person was caught doctoring his employer's Wikipedia article. As a result, the article was edit-protected". While this is not true (and also likely not notable) — because from the start I base my actions on my openly-declared COI involvement and confirm my professional relation to the subject. I am a COI party that tries, by legal Wikipedia methods, to counter misuse of Wikipedia by an alleged other COI party that tries to violate BLP (as you can see above, Ezhiki sees a "BLP violation" in this case). I was not "caught", I openly made my COI-driven edits to remove biased BLP content, and reported my actions in my blog and gave comments to press on that. I was not "doctoring", I was removing biased material according to Russian Wikipedia guidelines. Then, and now, I act for the goals of Wikipedia, to make it informative, neutral and unbiased, covering notable themes, with respect to BLP principles. While Gritzko, an anti-government political campaigner (I base this opinion "on his twitter", like he did for me), is trying to use Wikipedia for political struggle, and inserts strongly biased content in a previously-neutral BLP article — and this was confirmed by independent mediators Ezhiki and OlYeller21. --ssr (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Noticeboard/Archive_52? That says it all. The section changed a lot since OlYeller21 had made his comments. If you have any particular objections on any particular word/sentence/claim/fact/not-fact-at-all then please tell it. Also please provide references and everything. But so far, you are whitewashing your boss the dumbest way possible. Sorry. Gritzko (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please read the analysis above, it says that personally you should not include such a section no matter when and what you write there. But you insert it. 2) You are violating WP:CIV 3) According to analysis above, admin request was made. --ssr (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "I was removing biased material according to Russian Wikipedia guidelines. Then, and now, I act for the goals of Wikipedia, to make it informative, neutral and unbiased, covering notable themes, with respect to BLP principles."  Should I remind you that the content you attempted to remove is still in Russian Wikipedia? And that the article is edit-protected to prevent COI interference? You are lying so much and so often, I see no point in discussing anything with you. Gritzko (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I remind you that the article was edit-protected as a result of my own request to administrators? Here is the prooflink. Is this a surprise for you? Yes, please stop discussing anything with me, I have enough of it. --ssr (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Every claim Mr. Gritzko does has a prooflink in Russian federal and local press. You're just trying to remove all this valid claims because you are Mr. Misharin's employee. Stop fooling around. COI dispute has never ended and you're removing verified article content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.91.72 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You sound like you haven't read all of the BLP dispute. Please read it. No matter what employee I am, Wikipedia doesn't allow BLP violations. --ssr (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read all of it. Mr. Gritzko's claims is proven by federal and local press and you just try to censor WP. It really matters who employed you because you are payed for cleaning up valid and verified information from WP to make your employer look better than he's been proven to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.76.56 (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And again: Mr. Gritzko has already rewritten most of the Controversies section and backed all up with federal and local press sources. User ssr refers to analysis by user Ezhiki that was made before this rewrite and backing up. That's clear for me that he's lying and manipulating on behalf of his current employee Governor Misharin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.76.56 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The rewrite, if there was one, is not entirely convincing. There are still blog sources and things that look like WP:synthesis. And too many allegations instead of facts. Grey Hood   Talk  10:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Let's count: here we have 32 references in the whole article. "Still blog sources"? It's just one link #30. These "allegations" are backed up with 31 (of 32) local and federal press publications. You have something better then press? Ok, bring it in then instead of removing the article's content. What we see here is an attempt of political censorship of Wikipedia by payed "blog secretary" Mr. Rublev (ssr) who is employee of Governor Misharin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.76.56 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You speak of "political censorship", but the persistent attempts to re-add the information which was found problematic by non-involved users, and has not been fully amended, looks like political campaigning against the subject (not surprising before the December elections in Russia). Wikipedia is not politically censored, but it should not be a propaganda tool either.  Grey Hood   Talk  10:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for Russian elections? Clearly does not compute. I think you totally miss the point here: all this informations is backed up by Russian press sources. Governor Misharin's spokesman could add some other press backed up facts (or even "allegations") but he otherwise deletes the articles valid content. It's easy to spot the pattern here - it happened before in Russian WP in April (pretty far away from December elections and just after Mr Rublev became an employee of Sverdlovsk Oblast Government). This guy tries to convince all us here that he stands for neutral point of view but is he? He just deletes things that are unpleasant for his employer instead of backing up his claims. I think it is kind of political censorship. --213.87.76.56 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid lies. When I say that I am a "COI party" this clearly means that I don't "stand for neutral point of view". --ssr (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The one who is lying is you. There is no conflict of interest here - only your interest of deleting valid press backed up information from WP.
 * No, there is. Gritzko is an active member of political opposition who is actively oppressing the governor, and there's numerous evidence on that. He is clearly a COI party, and this issue is also present in Russian Wikipedia (see Russian talk page on the corresponding article). --ssr (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppressing the governor? Are you kidding? That's just ridiculous. --217.118.91.104 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Third-party analysis above says he is definitely not neutral, therefore he is a COI party. See Russian talk page on the corresponding article for details. --ssr (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That analysis is no longer applicable to this section since the section was rewritten. Now it's neutral (you have other opinion but I am suggesting good intentions of Mr Gritzko rewriting it) and backed up with press publications the section should be kept until someone proves its not-neutrality. To be honest I fell like any Wikipedia editor (even one who stands for neutrality) has a conflict of interest with your goal to praise your employer. --217.118.91.104 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the analysis again: it says that Gritzko should not be involved in writing about "Controversies" at all. But he keeps writing (and violating BLP), so the task is to remove his writings and not to allow him to write. This is the key point, and don't pretend you don't understand it. --ssr (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And excuse me if I make a comparison with other article. Let's take a look at article about Mr Putin. There are some "allegations" about his involvement in Litvinenko poisoning. These allegations were published in press and are part of Mr Putin biography. Would it be ok if someone payed by Mr Putin would delete this information from Wikipedia? I suppose it would be a political scandal. And now we see how Mr Rublev is deleting press published info from this article. You really think it's ok? --217.118.91.104 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what this spokesperson is telling us here: "Please read the analysis again: it says that Gritzko should not be involved in writing about "Controversies" at all. But he keeps writing (and violating BLP), so the task is to remove his writings and not to allow him to write. This is the key point, and don't pretend you don't understand it."

- --ssr (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rublev claims that he is a COI party and his opponent Mr Gritzko is a COI party. But Mr Rublev is the only one who is allowed to write about his emloyer Governor Misharin. Is it fair or makes sense? I don't think so. It's pretty clear that what we are facing here is the blatant attempt of political censorship (for which one Mr Rublev was payed by the Governor). If we use flawed logic of Mr Rublev this article should be deleted because he is the one with conflict of interest which means he should not write this article to begin with. And since it consists of his and Mr Gritzko writings it's fair to delete the article completely or keep it current version - with verified information published by Russian press.--217.118.91.104 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that ssr's preferred version might lack some of the relevant and well-sourced information, but at least it doesn't have problems with WP:BLP policy. And not breaching BLP is a serious point.
 * In order to fix the issue, we need to remove blog sources, synthesis, manipulated citations, WP:UNDUE and other problematic stuff. The brief glance over the last version tells me that these problems were not fully fixed. So at least some parts of the criticism section should be removed. Grey Hood   Talk  15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you point out those issues that "were not fully fixed" I think I can put some work into this. Would you like to assist me with this case? I don't really think Mr Rublev will not attempt to remove entire section anyway but we can try. --217.118.91.104 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have very little time for this right now, but may return to the question later. I'd suggest to remove blog sources for the beginning, which you seem to have identified already. Grey Hood   Talk  17:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I hope now Mr Rublev will stop deleting article contents instead of improving it. --213.87.74.166 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on. You have an employee of a public person. Who deletes unpleasant facts from the biography of said public person. Clearly, that employee should be kept off. But no, what's happening here? You are discussing some catshit instead. --Anonymous 21:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.237.13 (talk)
 * Also, I am starting polishing it, so please stop bad guys from deleting portions of the article text. --Anonymous 21:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.237.13 (talk)

reference name
Hey, should "Дорога имени Мишарина" be called "Road named after Misharin" or "Misharin Road"? --Anonymous 21:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.237.13 (talk)
 * If we want to translate word-to-word it would be "Road named after Misharin" but my common sense told me "Misharin Road" is better because it's the metaphor and the road is not really named after him but lobbied by him. --213.87.76.119 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Opressing the governor
Hi, guys. Currently I think that the spirit of the "Controversies" section is probably too polemic, so I plan to polish it in some future, have no time right now, unfortunately. Regarding what User::Tarc says (that the section is poorly sourced), that is vanilla BS. There are no better sources in Russia. The Expert, Vedomosti, Kommersant. Those are TOP BUSINESS PERIODICALS, period. (Vedomosti is a project of FT and WSJ, AFAIK; The Russian Reporter is a project of The Expert.) I had a couple of blog links there, but those are/were blogs of some officials, not just some random internet blogs. Gritzko (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A reminder: according to mediation results, you should not be an author of such a section. Your, and your companions' actions are qualified by independent users as an "usual partisan political type attack". --ssr (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) You're lying
 * (2) The mobile guy (213.87.) and the German guy (84.57.) are not my "companions"
 * (3) I will contribute to the article, I promise. Gritzko (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm lying - where? You are violating BLP, and admins' decisions to keep your content out confirm that. These guys are your "companions" because they insert portions of text written by yourself, can't you see? --ssr (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The accident
Unfortunately, the subject has made himself a vegetable before I had a spare evening to put back all the scandals he was involved in. Still, I plan that work for some future. I expect Ssr to become less furious these days. Not sure about Greyhood. In either case, the accident is definitely noteworthy. That's how the guy terminated his controversial career. Gritzko (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A reminder: according to mediation results, you should not be an author of such a section. Your, and your companions' actions are qualified by independent users as an "usual partisan political type attack". --ssr (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sergey, looks like you can read invisible letters! I see nothing like that at the link. Gritzko (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose, mediators do see. --ssr (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the accident put in by multiple IPs (probably one person) was dreadful. I have edited Gritzko's version (better) to be more neutral and for style.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

State of the article
As of now, the article looks like a homepage of a politician (resignation address, etc), which is wrong. I think, rollaing back all the edits made this May will improve the article significantly. Gritzko (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current text is a result of mediation process which involved third-party mediators. As was said above numerous times, you personally should not directly edit the article, only under supervision of independent mediators. --ssr (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ssr(Rublyov) is under a criminal investigation]]
I am rather pleased to relay that here:

Sergey Rublyov aka Ssr who was rather active in curating this article is currently under an actual criminal investigation as his PR services to Mr. Misharin were illegally paid. Namely, 66.ru and politsovet.ru report that Mr Rublyov was provided with a mock employment at a regional energy company as an "engineer" (being a journalist by education). The regional prosecutor's office investigates the incident.

http://politsovet.ru/40903-delo-o-mertvyh-dushah-rabota-formanchuka-mozhet-zakonchitsya-ugolovnym-delom.html

http://66.ru/news/society/131688/

Regional MP Alshevskikh confirms on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Alshevskix/status/299147903560204289

Well, it was really stupid from Mr Rublyov to do drunk posts on LiveJournal insulting his past employers. Gritzko (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any relation of this info to work on current Wikipedia article? You personally are not recommended to appear here by independent mediators, don't you remember? (because of your and your friends' persistent attempts to violently use Wikipedia for political attacks—while I was acting correctly according to rules, see also Russian article/talk—and your edits to both were totally wiped out) No "past employers" were insulted BTW. --ssr (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How unfortunate, I am not illegally employed full-time to whitewash reputations of corrupted politicians. Hence, I do not have that much time to defend my edits. But maybe, I will make another attempt. 2A02:6B8:0:107:D83D:EE04:EA8D:1553 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt you are able (if this long number is you) because _several_ independent mediators in ru end en after many long-time investigations decided that you and your friends try to violate wikipedia for political purposes so no luck for you here (read posts above including links to mediations—don't forget!). Such posts as this particular your post are not welcome here because it's unrelated to work on the article and may be deleted as off-topic (in ru this is widely practiced). --ssr (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure you are not talking to me now because you certainly know that I certainly know that you are lying. I'll make my edits this Saturday, be prepared. Gritzko (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No need for me to be prepared, I am, as you, a COI party, am not going to edit, and mediators will do their job well as they did before (many thanks again to them for their great work). --ssr (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a COI cause you were paid to doctor this article. I have no COI. You are a liar. Clear enough? Gritzko (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Read posts above including links to mediations—don't forget! --ssr (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the Bible, Rublyov. Cause you forgot everything. Gritzko (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see User_talk:Gritzko and stop editing the article, you and your socks. --ssr (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At the link provided, nothing suggests that I should stop editing any articles. If you think that I am using sockpuppet accounts (which?) then please write to the corresponding Noticeboard. If you think I have a Conflict of Interest (which?) then please write to the corresponding Noticeboard. You are definitely not in a position to tell me what to do. Gritzko (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop asking the same questions, all the answers are in discussions above. --ssr (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I said "Noticeboard". Gritzko (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, there's an arbitraiton warning for other Gritzko's violations: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104, so he must be under strict control, as his "warnings" most probably indicate further violations. --ssr (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)