User talk:Russavia/Archive 25

April 2012
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for Violation of your previous interaction ban and disruptive editing in the WP:ARBEE topic area per this AE Report. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. WGFinley (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

suggestions?
Hi, I have seen your great work on Commons and can't help but see your ...uhmmmmm.... perceptible.....input on the English wiki encyclopedia. I am a big aviation buff and am wondering if you can think of any areas of (especially Russian) aviation that need help or a new entry. I especially like the idea of new articles, so let me know any pointers you have. MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Comrade Zhukov, thanks for your questions. I am currently (which can mean I still haven't finished it after some years) working on, articles such as User:Russavia/Airlines, User:Russavia/Defunctair, User:Russavia/Il-62, User:Russavia/Il-86, User:Russavia/Tu-154, User:Russavia/Yak-42 which have plenty of red links in them which require articles to be written. I was thinking of writing (or expanding) a heap of articles to have a mega-DYK hook on front page (perhaps 40 article hook), which could surely be done -- only thing is they would have to be placed into mainspace at same time in order to qualify for DYK inclusion -- I know a 40 DYK hook is possible, but would obviously need a bit of work to be done, and perhaps this is perfect for collaboration. If interested in doing such a thing, drop me a line, and we can begin working on something such as this. Cheers, Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Tupolev Tu-214 really needs it own article. It did previously, but it was mostly copyvio. There is a wealth of information on this Tu-204 derivative that surely needs to be included, past the 4 lines that other editors deem to be necessary :D Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers, the red links may be easiest for me to address, so I plan to start on those.  Sorry to see (below) you will be taking a pleasure cruise away from us for awhile!   Enjoy your праздник and contact me on my talk page if my editing is off course.   MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey
LOL. Now even the bots are trolls. Love this!! Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from AGK
Please note This is in response to a discussion at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_24


 * Russavia, if I was just a little more sure that "tied up" in your reply to Fae is not the innocent idiom it purports to be, I would block you indefinitely for abusive behaviour. AGK  [•] 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I respond to you AGK, I am asking you a serious question here. Are you serious with what you wrote above? Or are you simply buggering about? Serious question asked, serious answer requested. Then you will get my response. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not waiting for a response from you AGK.


 * 1) Have you seen Requests_for_comment/Fæ?
 * 2) Have you seen User_talk:Fae.
 * 3) Did you see the emails I sent to Arbcom regarding the actual abusive behaviour and harassment that Fae was subjected to at that RfC? I know they were received because I got replies "thanking" me for bringing it to the Arbcom's attention.
 * 4) Did you see the other emails that were sent to Arbcom by other parties? I know they were sent, and I know they were received.

So AGK, tell me, being a member of the above referenced spineless Arbcom, can you tell me where you stood on the issues I have just linked to, and which I emailed Arbcom about? Do your other Comrades want to chime in with their stance? You lot aren't known for your transparency, so I am guessing this question will go unanswered. But that is the modus operandi isn't it? Leaving issues unanswered.

Are you, or the Arbcom, willing to tell us in the open why you ALL sat silent and did absolutely diddly squat about what was going on around the time of the RFC/U? Gutless is how I would describe the general situation, and cowards is how I would describe the Arbcom as a whole in this situation.

And now, you come to my talk page, and accuse me of being abusive towards Fae?

I honestly don't know who you are trying to impress, or what you are trying to prove, but if you were serious about abusive behaviour towards Fae, you would have done your job several weeks ago.

I've shown the committee in the past to be a bunch of incompetent fools who would rather close ranks to defend themselves as a group and continue with their non-transparent ways (TLAM unblock); and this seems to be yet another instance of Arbcom incompetence.

If you would like to continue with the outing of Arbcoms neglect on this issue (and this includes yours...especially yours), then please stay seated on that high horse, and I will continue to expose your fraudulent ways so long as you keep coming into my house and waving your tools around in my face like you have here.

So, anyway, you were saying? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In my own view, irrespective of an arbitrator's individual distaste for the abusive undercurrent to the Fae RFC, the committee as a body is not qualified to summarily shut down community discussion about an ostensibly-legitimate problem. Therefore, we did "diddly squat" because we were between a rock and a hard place. If we closed the RFC, one portion of the community would be in uproar that we are intervening in genuine dispute resolution. If we did not close the RFC, another portion would view us as unwilling to intervene in what they perceive as harassment. (A third option might be to try to guide the RFC towards closure using an advisory statement, but I am dubious as to the value of such statements, and I have no doubt that it would have had no effect in the given case.) If you look at the situation from a more balanced view, I'm sure you will realise that ArbCom was never going to float down from on high and dispense natural justice. We are simply not qualified or authorised to intervene in cases like this. You may think us to be incompetent fools (and may be the grand analyser of committee performance you purport to be), but it is the community of your peers that has limited our power - and rightfully so - to act as a super-government. Of course, it remains the case that I, personally, wanted to shut the whole thing down and indefinitely block the proponents, but I am only one vote in a committee of fifteen, so this is an irrelevancy I did not remember reading your outside view at the RFC (and I never did read Fae's talk page), so of course my predisposition to misinterpret - what was, admittedly, an unhappy choice of words - was an assumption of bad faith on my part. I apologise for this. I assure you that I am not "trying to impress" anyone or "trying to prove" anything, though I'm not entirely sure what on earth you might mean by that. I'll be waiting four hours then sending you an e-mail that you must respond, because of course I "will not be waiting for a response"... (Do you see now how unreasonable that is?) Regards, AGK  [•] 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note for context: This thread was forked from a previous thread by Russavia. -- AGK [•] 13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, considering correspondence about my harassment earlier this year, I am astonished to find out that you, and presumably the other committee members, never took the time to read Delicious carbuncle's RFC/U against me. You may want to do so now, including the abusive use of off-wiki speculation about my sex life on the associated talk page. I have no idea how Arbcom could consider any decision for action or inaction appropriate if this sort of information (that was highlighted to the committee) was ignored. As the victim of abuse, your statement here is the closest I have come to receiving any official feedback on these matters. In fact I have seen more thought and engagement from Arbcom members replying to questions from banned users on Wikipedia Review than I have found in reply to my direct emails. Perhaps the message intended from Arbcom is that I should use off-wiki manipulation to get things done rather than wasting my time on-wiki? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Fae. Because this is going to go to the heart of the issue and will not only greatly influence my reply to AGK, but will determine whether this needs to be investigated further, can you please confirm for me that it is a true and correct statement that you made above, in that AGK was made aware by yourself of the harassment you were undergoing, and that his statement above is the only response that you have received from AGK (or the Arbcom) on that matter? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fae, I did not say at any point that we did not read Delicious carbuncle's RFC, and this is wholly untrue: we considered the RFC at length over a period of days, and repeatedly in conjunction with your follow-up e-mails. I also did not say that I did not read Russavia's contribution to the RFC; what I did say was that I had forgotten he had posted such a statement. If you recall, there were countless contributors to the discussion, and it is far from unreasonable if I forgot about one author of one statement - especially in light of such an unhappy turn of phrase as "tied up". Please do not put words into my mouth. AGK  [•] 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, I accept your apology. There are further things that need to be discussed however, but I am taking one thing at a time here. The thread on ANI is at this point number one, then I'll come back to you. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Chewed out my arse indeed. My vote went to ban Delicious carbuncle, and I do not follow how you reconcile that with your portrayal of me as defending homophobia. I genuinely expected better. Also: while I am sure no editor particularly "likes it" [being criticised], it comes with the role of arbitrator and I would hope you have thought me to be sufficiently forthcoming in the above thread... AGK  [•] 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, thank you for your responses here AGK; they have been quite insightful. And yes, I did chew your arse out, but not because you think I am thinking you are "defending homophobia"; but because you came to my talk page and threatened me with an indef block over a comment which you weren't sure what attacking Fae; yet those editors who you know were acting in a homophobic way towards Fae, I can see no such warning towards those editors. So for some reason I wasn't afforded the same courtesies as others. Anyway, as we said moving on, I've accepted your apology, and we continue to discuss this.

On your talk page I also took you to task for what I, and many others, see as inappropriate interactions on wikipediaforum.com. You acknowledge two things in your reply, that I would like to continue to discuss here initially.

You mention that it's probably best that you stay away from sites operated by and which have participation in by people such as Eric Barbour. I couldn't agree more. Roles of editors who are Arbcom members are responsible to the community; not to people as Eric Barbour, who is not a member of the community, and not without good reason; and certainly not to Wikipediareview or Wikipediaforum. You stated that Wikipediaforum.com is more of a serious attempt at a WR. I disagree. For example, in that thread that you participated in, Eric states clearly that there is a "private" Wiki in which details on numerous editors are being collated; likely for use in future. This is not very transparent of them.

The second point is the most important point. Critique sites, in some opinions, may serve a purpose. But they should not be given information when detailed information on a case is not provided onwiki. Such as this case. Additionally, onwiki is the place to critique anything to do with the community, such as what I have done in the past, and am doing right now, because to do otherwise is playing into agendas that others may have with this community.

You noted above that you voted to ban Delicious Carbuncle. I can only see one place on WP where any such vote took place, and that was at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737 -- note, that from that section to the very bottom of the page deals with Delicious Carbuncle; first where he tried to have me blocked for bringing in the much supported view that he was harassing Fae -- compare this to DC's summary that was supported by only a single person! Having gone thru this entire discussion I can't see your comments, nor vote, there. So this leads me to assume that discussion occurred on the Arbcom mailing list; because again, I can see no discussion anywhere onwiki by the Committee.

Just yesterday, I saw that the WMF has passed a resolution on transparency; it got me thinking, perhaps our community, and especially the Arbitration Committee, should have requirements for transparency on this project. But it already does have such procedures in place as per AC/P, which require that resolutions and their results be posted to the Arbcom noticeboard. In this instance, it has not occurred, and because there is no privacy concerns in relation to this case (banning of Delicious Carbuncle), so it is in itself a breach of the internal policies and procedures of the Committee; and even moreso when Fae was never notified of the outcome of discussions and votes.

In the interest of transparency, and keeping inline with these policies and procedures, I requesting that the Committee published as required, the resolution/s as it/they was/were discussed and was voted on, to the Arbcom noticeboard, and also in the interest of transparency for the following Arbcom members indicate whether they supported the banning of Delicious Carbuncle from the community for what many community members felt was harassment of Fae.


 * : Voted to ban
 * : Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion
 * : Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion
 * : Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion
 * : Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion
 * : Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion
 * : Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion

Only with the publishing of these resolution/s and their resultant vote/s can we even begin to say that the Committee is acting in accordance with requirements for transparency to the Community. And it is something that I, and undoubtedly others, will continue to push for.

AGK, are you able to publish those resolutions and results on the Arbcom noticeboard as required? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To respond to a single point, a complainant cannot expect a transparent hearing if they do not submit a public request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee never received a request for arbitration, which is how it conducts the majority of its business. Only if our processes are properly used can the Arbitration Committee investigate a matter in a transparent, exhaustive manner. AGK  [•] 14:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you have me confused AGK. You stated above that you "voted" to ban DC, but on your talk page, you state that you only "voted" (or expressed opinion) for the committee to review this. Obviously these statements are completely different and contradict one another. This means that there was some sort of dissent on the committee for even looking at it; in which case, it means that some sort of opposition to the issue. Who discussed this on the mailing list? Who was for looking at it? Who was against looking at it?


 * You say that one can't expect a transparent hearing if they don't submit a public request for arbitration. I, and I am guessing the community at large, expect the Committee to be transparent 100% of the time, not just when it is in the "public" eye.


 * Other than, I am reading between the lines very clearly here, and I sure that your suggestion will be taken on board in the near future. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have left requests on each individual Arb's talk page requesting transparent answers to the issues and questions raised here. Time will tell if individual Arbs are willing to be as transparent as yourself AGK. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Recording of responses
The questions asked were:


 * 1) Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
 * 2) If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
 * 3) If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

Recording of responses:


 * : 1) yes 2) Had someone requested a case, I would have accepted, given the complexity of it. 3) I deleted the threads from my inbox and have not yet resubscribed to look at the archives. My recall is that I initially thought (or posted) leaning in favour of a ban, but after reading bits and pieces realised I was going to have to do a whole lot of reading myself to figure where I stood. When one can actually wield a banhammer, and one is faced with the prospect of using it, one (well I do anyway) become alot more circumspect if there are grey areas to consider...and there are some here.  (note: 2) and 3) had more general answers which are seen in the first diff)
 * : :In order, the RFC was discussed in very general terms, I did think the entire matter warranted closer review, and no vote was taken.
 * : 1) No 2) n/a 3) n/a
 * : 1) No 2) n/a 3) n/a
 * : 1) No 2) n/a 3) n/a
 * : 1) No 2) n/a 3) n/a
 * : 1) No 2) n/a 3) n/a

Re: Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
Yes, the matter was brought to ArbCom's attention, but as far as I can see in a look at the emails no vote was ever brought up, formal or otherwise. I haven't been following the affair that closely as personal matters have been taking up the majority of my time as late. Constantly asking questions of the list is not an effective means of anything, really; people are busy and things can often slip through the cracks for technical reasons. Anthony is correct that discussing on-wiki is the best option for transparency and for just getting things done eventually, as we've constantly got the issues in our collective faces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * David, this occurred during the time that you were listed as an active Arb, and while yes, personal matters can and do get in the way, the fact that the Committee was aware of it speaks volumes to my ears. Discussion onwiki is often not the best way to do things, particularly when an editor is being subjected to harassment (something that I am well aware of thru experience), because to have to answer things in public only gives those harassing an extra opportunity to continue with the harassment, and it makes the editor being harassed feel helpless to stop it. Also, note, this only occurred a few weeks ago, so it should be fresh in people's minds, but if you need to dig into emails to answer the questions, you may wish to do that. They really are simply questions, and require basically yes or no answers. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

People bring all sorts of stuff to Arbcom's attention. However, unless it falls within the remit of the committee - which is set out onwiki - there's no legitimate action that the committee can take. Yes, several people from all sides of the debate did communicate with Arbcom. No, there was no action requested that required the action of the committee. I have no idea what Russavia is attempting to prove here - other than deflecting attention from the siteban proposed for posting a cartoon that abused Polish editors of Wikipedia. Let's not forget that this is what started all this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads, please stop. I have already stated on the record, and have asked admins to do so, to go ahead and ban me, if they so wish. I really don't care about that, for that can be dealt with later. The potential banning of me is less important to me, and the Community, than Arbcom's transparency.


 * What started all this is an admin who is also an Arb coming to my talk page, and threatening me with a ban for abusing an editor (HARASSMENT); an editor who he and the Committee was aware was being harassed, and who I was supportive of in trying to stop the harassment. For example Elen of the Roads, it was you who responded to my email to the Committee and thanked me for bringing it to your attention (Jclemens was another).


 * I see that you have not yet answered the questions asked of you at User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads, but have instead chosen to come here to attack me. I view this simply as you being unable to separate issues. Please answer the simple questions which have been asked of you, and have been done so only in the interests of Arbcom transparency.


 * How are other editors going to view this? I don't know but I have dropped notes to several editors letting them know what is occurring here. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll answer your questions, although I feel Elen already did:
 * ArbCom received a number of emails about the matter.
 * Individual members of ArbCom are free to "review" what they please. We're individuals, not a group consciousness. I read through the emails and looked into the background, but that was about it since no formal requests for action were made. I expect many of my colleagues did the same.
 * Again, since no formal requests for action were made, there was no vote nor need for one.
 * If you feel action needs to be taken, I'd suggest you file a request at RFAR for a proper public review of the matter. However, I'm not about to disclose the content of private emails sent to the Committee in confidence, which seems to be what you're after. I echo Elen's concerns about your motives here, as your questions are rather leading, particularly when couched by a very charged rant (for lack of a better word) that doth claim too much it is solely in the interests of transparency. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Hersfold, even if it does appear to be a hassle for you. You haven't answered the questions, in particular No 2) - i.e. did you personally discuss the issue on the list? You question my motives; my motives are very simple indeed...to ensure that Arbcom is transparent to the community. Also, the questions I have asked are not leading; they are very simple questions indeed. If you could clarify whether you did or didn't discuss the issue on list would be appreciated, and what if anything you did discuss. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Russavia, I think it is unacceptable that you posted your polemic on my talk page when I am on Wikibreak, and am explicitly inactive as an arbitrator. It is even more unacceptable for you to have posted it on SirFozzie's page when he is clearly identified as being on a health-related wikibreak, and is also explicitly inactive as an arbitrator. There is a world beyond Wikipedia. Either bring an arbcom case or don't: if you do, be prepared to demonstrate why the users you identify as behaving inappropriately are doing so in a way that is harmful to this project. Risker (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Risker, I think it is unacceptable that you have come here, after I have posted some questions to Arbs in good faith and have been attacked in a most unacceptable way by yourself. Please know that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF applies to all editors, including Arbs, and so far I have had Elen of the Roads, Hersfold and yourself, attack me simply because I am putting questions to you which involve Arbcom transparency. I see nothing in the questions that I have asked being polemic in nature, but merely asking you simply whether you have discussed certain things, and for you to be transparent about it.


 * Now Risker, you are listed as inactive, and have been for many, many months (by the looks of it), and I grant that people have real life stuff to be doing, as do I, but as I look at it, you took time out to respond here only to attack me, and you could have simply answered the questions honestly, i.e. 1) no 2) n/a 3) n/a -- if that is true, and your response would have been noted, and left at that for the time being. Instead you wasted 2-3 minutes of your time, 3-4 minutes of my time in writing this response, and I see that other people who have asked you questions on your talk page, haven't received somewhat rude replies from you in response. Would you like to refactor your reply?


 * After I posted my questions, I was made aware on email about SirFozzie and him being ill---I do hope he is doing well, and is able to rejoin us on the project sometime real soon. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to note for the record that I received an email from Russavia which notified me of these discussions on the grounds that I supported his post in the RfC and stating that (to parahrase) he was concerned about ArbCom's lack of response and was following up on this and that I might be interested in following the resulting discussions and commenting on them. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick-D for dropping by. I did inform above that I have contacted several editors. FYI, "I am emailing you as a courtesy to let you know that this is occurring, and you may want to keep an eye on discussions, and chime in if you deem you need to do so."

" I don't think at this time there is any need for anyone to get involved (to chime in), as this is merely the beginning of something that others will probably want to chime into at a later date. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, I don't think you have been given a complete account of events. [..]

Fae was happy to talk about Delicious carbuncle in public, so there was no requirement for privacy. Subjecting this committee to criticism for its refusal to take action is unfair, because the community that elects us had already decided none was justified. We are not designed to overrule a community consensus on the request of any one editor; and I could count on one hand the number of times this committee has directly overturned a community decision. One of our failings is that, although I communicated directly with Fae, ArbCom as a body did not send a final "decision". In this respect, Fae has my apologies (as do the many other editors who have found ArbCom unresponsive; the usual explanation is that the huge volume of mail we receive mean this sometimes happens).

To return to your complaint, please consider this. If a private request is made to ArbCom to take action, why would we disclose the mere existence of this request - let alone how we voted and what was the rationale for our decision? If a private request was made to overrule the community, and an arbitrator informed the complainant that we would not do so, is the subsequent fury with that we were not transparent in this request, or with that our decision was not the one hoped for? This committee refused to become involved, because it is outwith our remit, and I really do not see what else can be done about this. AGK [•] 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AGK, you stated above that "Fae e-mailed us in late January with an allegation" could you give me the exact date when I emailed Arbcom? This does not match my records as I find no such email. I did correspond with you, personally, and you later asked to raise the matter with Arbcom. This is not the same thing and may be misleading.
 * At no time have I ever been "happy to talk about Delicious carbuncle in public". Surely the fact that I made no reply to the RFC/U he created against me indicates that. As for you directly quoting our correspondence, I am amazed at your indiscretion. You even told me off for copying in the UK CEO on one of our emails. Exactly why is it now ethical for you, especially as an active member of Arbcom, to start posting quotes from our private correspondence in a public discussion on Russavia's talk page? I remind you it was you that took the matter to Arbcom, not me, I only asked for your advice. If there is any failure here is it in your understanding of what could be achieved by going to Arbcom rather than other authorities in relation to Delicious carbuncle and the related threats I received.
 * The fact that after you decided to help me out by raising my case with Arbcom, you were publicly critical of me in my role as a trustee of the UK charity by using Wikipediocracy to complain about me rather than raising any complaint with me or my chapter directly, has not gone unnoticed. Presumably you wanted my stalkers and harassers from that forum to use the material you were posting against me. During this discussion you have cut me out, or at least not been bothered to tell me this discussion is happening, or get my permission in drawing more attention and revealing confidential matters about the Arbcom case involving my harassment; an Arbcom discussion that you created. These actions are not what I expect of Arbcom and certainly I fail to understand your approach in dealing with Russavia, when you could have just ignored his questions as trolling or given more generic replies to his questions. Please remember that in your actions you are carrying the authority of that committee.
 * Please immediately cease referring or quoting from our private correspondence until such a time as you might have my permission. I remind you, that there are matters in our correspondence that would not be appropriate to refer to without getting permission from the people involved and that you previously asked me to keep all our correspondence confidential, even from my fellow trustees or staff in Wikimedia UK. I would prefer you to withdraw all the quotes you have made above, even if they have been reposted elsewhere by my stalkers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fae, I am quoting messages that I sent to you, that I wrote, and that do not divulge (explicitly or by implication) the contents of anything you sent to me in return. Nevertheless, I have removed the contents by your request until or if you answer the preceding point - because it is of course possible that I have made a gross error of judgement. If so, please enlighten me: how does summarising some of the decisions we/I sent to you in any way violate the confidentiality of the situation? My participation in any criticism website is in my role as an individual and not open to you for use to manipulate the situation to make it appear as though I am, in spite of my own actions as an arbitrator, working against you. Just as I sit in a elected, volunteer position (and am therefore subject to reasonable criticism, and a requirement to respond to the same), you are a member of a Wikimedia chapter and subject to criticism for your own actions. If you are reasonable, take the other arbitrators and I out of the position we have been forced into, and set the record straight that we dealt with your case in as transparent and rational a way as possible. As I am sure you are well aware, I did not tell you off for copying one of "your e-mails" to another individual. I told you off for copying that e-mail to another individual, with the whole conversation - including e-mails you did not write - appended. You are conflating the confidentiality of messages you are sent by other people with your own e-mails, which are yours to do with as you wish. Regards, AGK  [•] 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a reply. I am not happy with your responses, I suggest you take time to reflect on why I might not be. As an Arbcom member with privileged information I do not expect you to be making public comments criticising me on the forums managed by the same people making attacks against me. It is not my role to enlighten you on what is required of ethical behaviour in this situation. I have not created a position that you might have been forced into by your own actions. I did not raise a case with Arbcom. I did not make a request about this matter with Arbcom in January, that was your action.
 * You are fully aware that I have received advice from authorities on the matter of criminal threats made against me and I am obliged not to discuss this matter in any detail.
 * I consider this matter closed. If you or Arbcom wish to release any further public statement about me, please write to my Wikimedia UK address or email and I will consult with my board and, if necessary, the authorities in the UK before making any reply. In the meantime I would appreciate no mention of me with regard to this case when Russavia's questions can be answered perfectly well in a generic form with regard to your required ethical behaviour and associated policies. If you expect personal correspondence with me to be made public, I require you to advise me of that possibility when engaging me in private correspondence. Correspondence with my Wikimedia UK address will be considered recorded and may be kept confidential if you wish, but might be subject to assessment should there be any complaint about my ethical behaviour as a trustee. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Russavia, I think Fae's reply demonstrates as well as anything precisely why we are all uncomfortable speaking about this incident and answering your questions about transparency. I for one am simply unwilling to juggle a serious incident on one side with shark-like criticism on the other, which is regularly spread onto my talk page. If my colleagues want to continue this discussion then they should feel free to do so. However, your incessant criticism (about which you gloat, as though you are rightfully "ripping the arse" out an arbitrator, and not actually baiting them into divulging the details of a private hearing) has left me disgusted, and I will not participate further if you decide to continue this inquiry. Fae, if you require a reply to your remarks then I would be pleased to give one, but you will have to continue this discussion on my talk page. I do not want to continue with this thread, and I also do not think it is correct for a conversation between you and me to be on another editor's talk page (albeit under a related discussion). AGK  [•] 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Russavia, as you know I share your point of view on the overall issue, but I think things may be getting off track here. I know the treatment of Fae was an absolute disgrace, and I agree that there were specific points in there where administrators could have stepped in, but I don't know what you can accomplish arguing with a few ArbCom members now.  Superficially, Risker's comment about "either bring an ArbCom case or not" seems sensible enough to me - fortunately, they can't start a case on their own.  Now from conversation at  I thought that Fae's adversaries might start a case, or else, Fae might start a case; even you could start a case I think.  Maybe ArbCom could have butted in without a formal case where one particularly outrageous and unsupported allegation was concerned that I've commented on, if you really stretch WP:Child protection to the limit, but that policy Jimbo Wales wrote has been more or less ignored even on his own user talk page when it was directly relevant, so all and all ... not likely.  I am very surprised a case hasn't been started, and if one is I'll try to make some good arguments - but really, honestly, if I have any compassion for Fae, probably I should not wish such further grief upon him.  I should acknowledge that recently DC and the other Wikipedia Review people actually did manage to catch a distinctly possible witch on one of their witch-hunts over on Commons, which is more than I thought would ever come out of all their efforts ... still, I think they'll continue getting into unpleasantness until they end up in serious trouble, and if that happens we may get the action you desire without having to put Fae through this all over again. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wnt, thank you for your comments. Arbcom have in the past started cases on their own, and have acted without input from editors and the community. For example, did you know the block that I've just gotten, was due to WP:EEML, which the Arbcom started on their own. That is just one case that I know of that set a precedent for Arbcom starting cases, or acting, without community input.


 * If Arbs are unable to answer simple questions about whether they discussed certain things, and are unable to express their thoughts on those things, without politic speak, and are unable to take critique (doesn't necessarily mean negative criticism), then they really have no place in being Arbs in the first place. This is all part and parcel of transparency.


 * As Fae has mentioned, Arbs are free to treat my questions as trolling (which they aren't), but this reflects on them more than it does me. The fact that some Arbs have so far answered the questions asked of them, shows who is open to scrutiny, and the fact I've been attacked by others, shows who is not. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that is peculiar. I've spent way too much time here of late, but I don't remember hearing about this case.  I thought the whole idea of waiting until the editors request assistance is in the hope that the community could figure it out, or at least, keep the dispute within bounds just to avoid it coming to that. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on harassment
Preventing archiving.....

Eastern Europe Topic Ban
This is to notify you that you are topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Eastern Europe, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely per this AE report. This replaces all previous sanctions against you. Further, your block above for 6 months is part of this action. Future violations of your TBAN after your block expires can result in further blocking. The blocking notice above outlines options of appeal should you wish to do so. --WGFinley (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wgfinley, thanks for this. To anyone who is watching my talk page, you can look forward to more contribs directly from me in 6 months. I will be using this time to continue building a cult of personality (j/k) on Commons by uploading materials from premier.gov.ru before they are lost (in case), continuing to try and get permission from a variety of sources for use of their materials (some of which will surely find their way onto enwp in quick time). And who knows, I might even try my hand at writing articles on other projects. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This all seems very peculiar. There's an interaction ban between Russavia and another editor, the two are interacting, one draws a two week ban and the other six months?  A ban based on a case ArbCom started itself?  The creation of Polandball was supposed to be some kind of great crime?  It looked like an unassuming fluffy little article that maybe had a few rough edges to file off, but I would never have pegged it as a source of huge troubles.  Most of all, it seems like a few editors whose actions have much concerned me before are once again victorious.  I will avoid editorializing just yet, since I haven't followed this story well enough to speak with confidence, but I find this very disturbing. Wnt (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't comment on this at the moment; for the above issues to do with Arbcom are more important than myself at the moment (and it's not finished with as much as they wish for it to go away). I have more than enough to keep me busy on other projects; contributions on other projects will undoubtedly make their way onto this project. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WGfinley, can you please advise under what Arbcom case this topic ban has been made? Is it WP:DIGWUREN? Please advise at your earliest convenience. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:DIGWUREN has been renamed to WP:ARBEE. --WGFinley (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Croatian translation
Sure I can help you tomorrow :) Vatrena ptica
 * Thank you Vatrena ptica, that is appreciated. :) russavia ( talk ) 11:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek translation of Polandball
I can try for a translation not in a strict deadline of course. Γλαύκος ( talk ) 10:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer to help with this Glavkos, it's appreciated. :) russavia ( talk ) 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ι could also work on a translation in Esperanto...maybe next month though. I have to work on some other projects this month. Γλαύκος ( talk ) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the barnstar!!! Let's talk again about the Esperanto translation in the beginning of June. I am busy this month :) --Glavkos (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Persian(Farsi) translation of Polandball
I have started translating it here. But I'm slightly busy so it'll probably take some time. I'll do my best anyway:)Vyatana ( talk ) 11:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Vyatana, thank you ever so much for your kind assistance with this. It is appreciated. And of course, there is no deadline on Wikipedia, everyone is welcome to help with whatever they can spare the time to do. If you need anything from me, please let me know. :)) russavia ( talk ) 11:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I quite like Polandballs my self too :D. Just one thing, In the article you put in your talk page in fa.Wiki, the second image (The "Poland cannot into space" one) seems to have a problem. Could you check it please? Oh and, the article is here(not finished) if you wanted to check:) Thank you. Vyatana  T 09:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Thank you so much for the images:). I just had a question if I may, I didn't quite get why Israel is represented with a hypercube? Vyatana  T 12:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Polandball can into Wikipedia? Or can it? A timeline

 * 26 March 2012 - Polandball was posted into mainspace by myself after writing it in userspace
 * 26 March 2012 - Nominated for April Fools DYK
 * 26 March 2012 - User:Addihockey10 reviewed the DYK nomination, and confirmed that the article fulfilled DYK requirements. DYK reviewers take responsibility for confirming that the article is more than 1,500 characters in length, that inline citations are used, that there are no NPOV issues, that the hook is referenced, etc.
 * 26 March 2012 - Article is taken to AfD
 * 26 March 2012 - Translation of the article was published on German Wikipedia. (de:Polandball)
 * 26 March 2012 - Translation of the article is published on Russian Wikipedia (ru:Polandball)
 * 4 April 2012 - German Wikipedia article deleted at AfD, largely on the back on the enwp AfD
 * 5 April 2012 - The Russian Wikipedia article in nominated for deletion (ru:Википедия:К_удалению/5_апреля_2012)
 * 21 April 2012 - The Russian Wikipedia AfD is closed as a keep by a Russian Wikipedia admin and crat, who noted that articles on Russian Wikipedia require authoritative, in-depth sources in order to be kept, and that this was clearly demonstrated in the article and in the subsequent discussion.
 * 21 April 2012 - On the back of the AfD discussion at Russian Wikipedia, a translation of the article is published at Spanish Wikipedia (es:Polandball)
 * 25 April 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Catalan Wikipedia (ca:Polandball)
 * 27 April 2012 - A stub is published on Arabic Wikipedia (ar:Polandball)
 * 3 May 2012 - Several editors begin translating the article on Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Polandball)
 * 7 May 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Persian Wikipedia (fa:Polandball)
 * 7 May 2012 - A stubbish translation of the article is published on Swahili Wikipedia (sw:Polandball)
 * 7 May 2012 - A translation of the Russian article is published on Ukrainian Wikipedia (uk:Polandball)
 * 8 May 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Greek Wikipedia (el:Polandball)
 * 11 May 2012 - A translation of the article is published on Bulgarian Wikipedia (bg:Polandball)
 * 22 July 2012 - A stub is pubrished in Veps Wikipedia (vep:Polandball)

Unblock request

 * Please note, that this is an AE block, as per this. So clarification from the blocking admin is requested, and any unblock should NOT be done by any admin, but rather sent back to WP:AE. The blocking admin/WP:AE will need to be pinged in relation to this. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be explained and discussed in some detail in the AE ruling, so I really don't know what more information you want, but I'll let the blocking admin know what you're asking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not entirely clear to me unfortunately -- there was so much going on at the time. I know part of it is the WP:IBAN violation, but the disruptive editing hasn't really been spelled out clearly. Thanks for pinging WGFinley, but it appears they aren't active? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw WGFinley doesn't appear to be active, so I've dropped Elen a note too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Just need clarification of what is the disruptive editing aspect of the block, so that this can actually be addressed. I'll await word from one of those; otherwise I guess a notice at WP:AE can be posted after a bit to see if admins there will provide more clarification. Cheers, Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that for you if needed - I have this page watched now, so just ask here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As clearly stated in my notification and the block log, this is a block to enforce an ARBCOM decision per this AE report. Appeal can be made at WP:AE or to the ARBCOM mailing list. The full details are in the AE report and admin discussion. --WGFinley (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Russavia, checking your own talk archive would be instructive. See User talk:Russavia/Archive 25. All these questions about your block were previously answered in early April, right here on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
 To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one year for continued violation of your Eastern Europe topic ban on your talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. WGFinley (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
 * I have no love for Russavia, nor really any interaction, but their block was extended for what exactly? Silver  seren C 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalaway (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that was 10 days ago. Why did this happen now? Was there some sort of discussion elsewhere going on? An AE discussion or something? Silver  seren C 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Could there be more explanation here of why an unusual 1 year block (now effectively more than 13 months of being blocked) was a necessary sanction, and why the severe step had to be taken of removing all talk page access, especially when Russavia was apparently (encouragingly) starting to prepare a case for an unblock request? If the problem here is edits such as this one, then I would expect to see a history on this page of requests for removal, or bold removal by an admin followed by discussion, and more initial dialogue to desist from behaviour which breaches the intention of the TBAN before jumping from 6 months to a 13+ months block. Russavia may be seen by many as a complete pest in this area, I'm no expert, but in other areas is well valued as a productive contributor. I would hope there is a clear and easy path left open for Russavia so that we can see the Standard offer apply, as it does to far more badly behaved vandals and disruptive banned editors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Block Extension Rationale
I thought my notice was pretty clear and my further explanation after my notice was clear but I will expand in further detail.


 * 1) Under discretionary sanctions by a broad consensus of admins at WP:AE was blocked for 6 months and topic banned from articles covered by the Eastern Europe Arb Case (fka "WP:DIGWUREN"). The duration of the block and ban were set by previous WP:ARBEE blocks and bans Russavia has received.
 * 2) Russavia was notified of this decision.
 * 3) The ban and block were logged.
 * 4) Russavia acknowledged the block and ban., asked for clarification and he received clarification.
 * 5) Russavia blanked his talk page thus removing the ban and block notice and the discussion above.
 * 6) Since the block and ban Russavia has been using his talk page here to press on with the Polandball issue, the reason he was blocked and topic banned from Eastern Europe. This is in violation of his topic ban.
 * 7) As my talk page indicates, I have been on WP:BREAK due to a relocation in progress.
 * 8) I was notified on my talk page and via email notice that Russavia was appealing his block. The appeal was correctly denied, this is a block due to arb enforcement, appeals need to go to Arbitration Enforcement or ARBCOM directly.
 * 9) While reviewing and commenting to confirm the denial was correct I noticed the rest of the talk page and that Russavia was continuing his Polandball endeavors via his talk page. Since he removed the notices it wasn't noticed by the prior admins, since I delivered the notice I was well aware of it.
 * 10) Since Russavia has been in regular violation of his topic ban on his talk page since he received it he's violated the ban and under discretionary sanctions I have blocked him for one year (doubling the previous block is common for arbitration enforcement violations) and blocked his talk page access as that has been his vehicle to continue violating his ban.
 * 11) As the notice states, Russavia is free to appeal this block and ban directly to ARBCOM if he so desires.

I hope this answers any and all questions. --WGFinley (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking time to write up the clarifications.
 * With regard to doubling the block as common practice, the action taken here has been to extend a 6 months block to a total of more than 13 months due to time already blocked. Please consider adjusting the period accordingly. We are in danger of running foul of a version of one of Zeno's paradoxes.
 * I appreciate that you have been on a break, however the rationale given does seem to by-pass a having a dialogue or firm action to remove what you believe is material violating the TBAN and discussing it, especially in the light of Russavia's open preparation for an unblock request. Personally, I feel it fulfils our principles of openness if Russavia were allowed to prepare an unblock request on-wiki, rather than by secret email, especially if this were facilitated by a knowledgeable moderator, such as yourself, for where any unblock request evidence touches on TBAN related material. Thanks again --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Preparing for an unblock doesn't mean he would have been unblocked. In fact, since he spent most of his entire time since being blocked continuing on with the things he got blocked for I would consider it unlikely. He has an outlet to appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is, pardon my french, fucked up. There was no reason to extend the block. It defies common sense. Part of a successful unblock appeal for him would be to show that the polandball issue wasn't the evil thing that it was made out to be. From his work across other projects he has shown just that. By the way, the translations that Russavia posted were done by other editors and were kept at AfD by other wikipedias. I am looking over the evidence again and I am coming to see that it was all smoke and mirrors. I am partly ashamed that I agreed that the six month block was the right decision -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  06:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it rather odd for someone who doesn't spend much time on en Wiki and make a block which was based on a ten day old diff (Guerillero, has stated above that it wasn't a breach) and no opportunity for a response by the community and russavia. If russavia had breached the ArbCom ruling, then the block should have been extended for twelve months and not thirteen since he had already served one month of the block. WGFinley's handling of the block is poor, the block should be reverted back and further alleged "breaches" should be dicussed before a block is extended since editors here will have differing views on it. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems Arbcom is not the last resort for appeal in this case. An AE action is appealed to AE and Arbcom will send such appeals back to AE, isn't it? Grey Hood  Talk  23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given an extensive detail of the rationale. The fact that I am not on regularly at the moment doesnt' mean I can't look at a talk page and see regular and persistent violation of the ban since it was put in place. In cases where a blocked user is using his talk page to violate a ban that access is removed. As such the usual route of appeal is via email to ARBCOM. My judgment is not beyond review, it is within the purview of ARBCOM if the user so desires. ARBCOM looks at appeals on a regular basis, if Russavia wants to challenge his block and/or ban that is his outlet to do so. --WGFinley (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An ArbCom clerk (Guerillero) has slammed your block, your comment also doesn't address the issues raised. Best thing to do is to revert 13 month block and restore talkpage access, then take it to AE for uninvolved ArbComs to make a ruling on the alleged breach. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The block is entirely justified. WP doesn't need clowns like Russavia goading others and wasting people's time. He/She knew what they were doing, and got what they deserved. It was all entirely predictable when s/he embarked on this silly behaviour. Malick78 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The original block was unjustified and the unexplained extension made matters worse. Estlandia (dialogue) 21:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All Russavia had to do was stop being a WP:DICK and edit in a constructive way. But no, Russavia decided to try to be clever, show off, and wind people up. How can it be unfair?Malick78 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (I've just reverted an edit by Malik Shabazz removing my comments. I'm just showing support for an admin who is getting criticised unfairly. Please leave my comments above. If you'd like me to tone it down, ask nicely but don't try to put pressure on the admin by pretending my view was never expressed.) Malick78 (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's something I don't get here. Chasing through the ARBEE link, I find the third version: "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." As incredibly broad as that is, Russavia's talk page is not an article, and it doesn't relate to Eastern Europe. I see a huge lack of proportionality when Russavia faces very intentional abuse and Youreallycan is blocked for only a few hours, but he posts a cartoon to his user page with no particular intend to offend, and draws a full year block for it. It looks like Wikipedia's notions of "civility" have lost all semblence of legitimacy. Wnt (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But s/he was almost definitely trying to offend.Malick78 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're talking about, right? That sounds more like an argument about the block to me.  Sure, it's a bit flippant, but Wikipedia ought to be a place where you can be flippant on your user talk page without penalty.  To say that this comment on this user page makes Wikipedia in any way a harder place for Polish or other editors to get their work done - that is highly implausible.  Now, it may bother some admins that Russavia didn't sound suitably chastened and respectful there, but what should bother them about that is that it indicates that another editor was apparently losing patience with their project after receiving highly inequitable treatment (six months versus three hours).  If Wikipedia wants blocked editors to be respectful, its administrative processes need to be respectable. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not Polish but I thought it was petty, snide, and obviously intended to goad Poles on WP. That it's not in an article, in my view, doesn't negate the fact it was designed to upset the atmosphere here. S/he thumbed their nose at the rest of us, so the rest of us decided to have a break from Russavia.Malick78 (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Russavia,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sukhoi Su-30 inflight.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 17, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-05-17. — howcheng  {chat} 16:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

French translation of Polandball
My French is just terribly bad. It's not a good idea to let me translate anything to French. From French to English or German is np. Regards, --Stanzilla (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC) I asked another user, who speaks good English and French.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC) But he/she refused, sorry.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Transaero Airlines logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Transaero Airlines logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I mentioned you here. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned you here (not in a bad way) Wnt (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Email received
I received what purports to be an email from you. Kindly do not send any such emails to me in future. Ever. In fact, such emails would seem quite on point for your general problems, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Angara Airlines logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Angara Airlines logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Darwin Airline logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Darwin Airline logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I have mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Fæ (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SCAT Air Company logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:SCAT Air Company logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I've lodged an Amendment request here --Nug (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment
This is a courtesy notification that there is a request for amendment naming you as a party. Several arbitrators have asked for your input on the request and the related motion, both of which are viewable at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee's Clerk Team, Lord Roem (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Macair Airlines logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Macair Airlines logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Esperanto translation of Polandball
Hi Russavia! I have translated your article "Polandball" in esperanto (eo:Uzanto:Russavia/Polandball). The name in esperanto is "Pollandpilko". --89.224.174.28 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (Dominik)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment that: The Eastern European mailing list case is supplemented as follows:
 * The interaction ban placed upon User:Nug and User:Russavia in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately. The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Myanma Airways logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Myanma Airways logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Name mention
As a courtesy note I informing that I mentioned your name. M.K. (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:APEC 2012 logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:APEC 2012 logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Ambassadors of Russia by receiving country
Category:Lists of Ambassadors of Russia by receiving country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal Brunei logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Royal Brunei logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Pizza1016 (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ambassadors of the People&#39;s Republic of China
Category:Ambassadors of the People&, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kyrgyzstan logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Kyrgyzstan logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kogalymavia logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Kogalymavia logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Zealandic wikipedia
When you create an article of Polandball on the zealandic Wikipedia, i will translate the article.Ouddorp (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Antonov An-124 is responsible for turning me into a Russophile
Antonov is Ukrainian, does this fact turn you into a Ukrainophile? Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country)
Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Offices
Hi! When you come back, realize that this is the head office and each company page needs a photo of the head office. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm of need help about Polandball
Dear Russavia: I need your help. I want to enter information about Polandball in the english Wikipedia but every time I enter that information, that information is deleted, allegedly for lack of reliable sources. I have understood that you are a big fan of Polandball, so I need advice about reliable sources for information about ball and also like to advise me on Polandball images on Reddit for uploading in Wikimedia Commons. Thanks in advance and God bless you. --Babelia (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Russavia,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075 in flight 28-Jul-2011.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 31, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-01-31. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Zakavia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zakavia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Zakavia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jetstreamer Talk 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Air Pullmantur logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Air Pullmantur logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nikolai Petrov (pianist)
Добрый день, Товарищ

Can you explain to me where WP:RUS supports this move you made in August 2011? I can't see any mention of patronymics there at all.

Seems to me the previous name Nikolai Petrov (pianist) is far more useful to anglophone audiences, who cannot possibly be expected to know that the Nikolai Petrov with the patronymic Arnoldovich is a pianist but the one with the patronymic Filippovich was a painter, and so on.

Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Player's Navy Cut
Player's Navy Cut might interest you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Air Pullmantur logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Air Pullmantur logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Polandball
Would you please remove all mention of polandball from your user page. Currently, a mini edit war is in progress, with being the most recent, and which restored the offensive cartoons. Possibly you overlooked my previous request on 8 March 2013 (archived here), so please either remove the cartoon section, or again remove my request as an indication that you want to keep the polandball reference on your user page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not post on my talk page again in relation to this "issue" whilst there is a topic ban in place, as it could be construed as baiting in trying to make breach my topic ban. I just hope that no-one sees this response as a breach of said topic ban; but I need to respond to it to make it clear to Johnuniq not to bring this issue to me again; I was hoping the first time I ignored it would have been enough. Russavia (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)