Russavia AkA Scott Bibby

[DanMurphy]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

[Zoloft]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

It's the feel-good story of the year!

Watch it with someone you love.

[thekohser]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

[Moonage Daydream]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

It would probably be more correct to say "one of Wikipediocracy's most avid followers".

[Vigilant]

"One of wikipedia's biggest freaks"

[Malleus]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

Didn't you forget thoughtfulness?

[Kevin]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

Didn't you forget thoughtfulness?

It's not built on thoughtfulness though, that's just the shiny cracked faux veneer on the top.

[Volunteer Marek]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

Didn't you forget thoughtfulness?

I don't know about all this. For the record I was "anti-Russavia" long before being "anti-Russavia" was cool (in the sense that because of the topic area we were both involved in I knew and tried to point out, that this guy was trouble long time before WR or this site caught on). I have a well founded suspicion that he (and some of his friends) did a lot of shit to me and my personal life that is not even brought up here. But this blog post has a very ED feel to it. I don't see how his wackiness with perfume or his shenanigans with these airplane safety cards (wtf these are) are in any way relevant to Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism. Ok, I get it, it's meant to show that this is a sketchy character that managed to get into a position of influence on Wiki Commons. But honestly, I really do think that his record both on Wiki Commons and on En-Wiki is sufficient to speak to that, there's no need for the petty character assassination (weird quotes from his mom and all that other crap). All that consists of just stupid stuff googled on the internet and though it may be true, why put it up? Especially on the site which emphasizes the personal abuse that people can suffer as a result of Wikipedia - how can you turn around and essentially do a big-ass BLP vio on someone? Leave the hypocrisy to Wikipedia.

I actually really think that blog post should be taken down or at least rewritten. If I was one of the influential folks on this site I'd do it myself, but since I'm not I feel strongly enough about it to note my thoughts on it here. This is the kind of stuff that gave WR a bad name (for a good reason, it's shitty and petty, even if the person you're attacking is shitty and petty themselves) and if this is going to be a serious criticism site then this stuff doesn't belong here, or at least it needs to observe some minimal "rules of engagement"

I don't know if it's just me and my in born cynicism but is Wikipediocracy depreciating into pursuit of petty grudges?

[DanMurphy]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

Didn't you forget thoughtfulness?

I don't know about all this. For the record I was "anti-Russavia" long before being "anti-Russavia" was cool (in the sense that because of the topic area we were both involved in I knew and tried to point out, that this guy was trouble long time before WR or this site caught on). I have a well founded suspicion that he (and some of his friends) did a lot of shit to me and my personal life that is not even brought up here. But this blog post has a very ED feel to it. I don't see how his wackiness with perfume or his shenanigans with these airplane safety cards (wtf these are) are in any way relevant to Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism. Ok, I get it, it's meant to show that this is a sketchy character that managed to get into a position of influence on Wiki Commons. But honestly, I really do think that his record both on Wiki Commons and on En-Wiki is sufficient to speak to that, there's no need for the petty character assassination (weird quotes from his mom and all that other crap). All that consists of just stupid stuff googled on the internet and though it may be true, why put it up? Especially on the site which emphasizes the personal abuse that people can suffer as a result of Wikipedia - how can you turn around and essentially do a big-ass BLP vio on someone? Leave the hypocrisy to Wikipedia.

I actually really think that blog post should be taken down or at least rewritten. If I was one of the influential folks on this site I'd do it myself, but since I'm not I feel strongly enough about it to note my thoughts on it here. This is the kind of stuff that gave WR a bad name (for a good reason, it's shitty and petty, even if the person you're attacking is shitty and petty themselves) and if this is going to be a serious criticism site then this stuff doesn't belong here, or at least it needs to observe some minimal "rules of engagement"

I don't know if it's just me and my in born cynicism but is Wikipediocracy depreciating into pursuit of petty grudges?

It's pretty much a one off. While I don't agree entirely with how the thing was written, I advocated for this being published. Sunlight, disinfectant, all that. In my personal ethics, big boy rules apply to someone who has slandered so many others and attacked a whole nation of people under the precious "anonymity" that Wikipedia grants to people like him.

If you are willing to write a better/different piece on him, I'd almost certainly advocate for that being published as well (even, especially, if it specifically criticizes the current post).

[Zoloft]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

Didn't you forget thoughtfulness?

I don't know about all this. For the record I was "anti-Russavia" long before being "anti-Russavia" was cool (in the sense that because of the topic area we were both involved in I knew and tried to point out, that this guy was trouble long time before WR or this site caught on). I have a well founded suspicion that he (and some of his friends) did a lot of shit to me and my personal life that is not even brought up here. But this blog post has a very ED feel to it. I don't see how his wackiness with perfume or his shenanigans with these airplane safety cards (wtf these are) are in any way relevant to Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism. Ok, I get it, it's meant to show that this is a sketchy character that managed to get into a position of influence on Wiki Commons. But honestly, I really do think that his record both on Wiki Commons and on En-Wiki is sufficient to speak to that, there's no need for the petty character assassination (weird quotes from his mom and all that other crap). All that consists of just stupid stuff googled on the internet and though it may be true, why put it up? Especially on the site which emphasizes the personal abuse that people can suffer as a result of Wikipedia - how can you turn around and essentially do a big-ass BLP vio on someone? Leave the hypocrisy to Wikipedia.

I actually really think that blog post should be taken down or at least rewritten. If I was one of the influential folks on this site I'd do it myself, but since I'm not I feel strongly enough about it to note my thoughts on it here. This is the kind of stuff that gave WR a bad name (for a good reason, it's shitty and petty, even if the person you're attacking is shitty and petty themselves) and if this is going to be a serious criticism site then this stuff doesn't belong here, or at least it needs to observe some minimal "rules of engagement"

I don't know if it's just me and my in born cynicism but is Wikipediocracy depreciating into pursuit of petty grudges?

It's pretty much a one off. While I don't agree entirely with how the thing was written, I advocated for this being published. Sunlight, disinfectant, all that. In my personal ethics, big boy rules apply to someone who has slandered so many others (and used pseudo-anonymity to attack whole nations of people under the precious "anonymity" that Wikipedia grants to people like him).

If you are willing to write a better/different piece on him, I'd almost certainly advocate for that being published as well (even/especially if it specifically criticizes the current post).

If you write it, VM, I'll format it and post it, although I suspect no one would actually oppose such a post.

[HRIP7]

A new blog out on our front page about that lovable Wikipedia character Russavia (T-C-L), who also goes by the stage name Scott Bibby. It's a tale of how Wikipedia is built on love and respect and if you follow your dreams, good things happen.

Didn't you forget thoughtfulness?

I don't know about all this. For the record I was "anti-Russavia" long before being "anti-Russavia" was cool (in the sense that because of the topic area we were both involved in I knew and tried to point out, that this guy was trouble long time before WR or this site caught on). I have a well founded suspicion that he (and some of his friends) did a lot of shit to me and my personal life that is not even brought up here. But this blog post has a very ED feel to it. I don't see how his wackiness with perfume or his shenanigans with these airplane safety cards (wtf these are) are in any way relevant to Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism. Ok, I get it, it's meant to show that this is a sketchy character that managed to get into a position of influence on Wiki Commons. But honestly, I really do think that his record both on Wiki Commons and on En-Wiki is sufficient to speak to that, there's no need for the petty character assassination (weird quotes from his mom and all that other crap). All that consists of just stupid stuff googled on the internet and though it may be true, why put it up? Especially on the site which emphasizes the personal abuse that people can suffer as a result of Wikipedia - how can you turn around and essentially do a big-ass BLP vio on someone? Leave the hypocrisy to Wikipedia.

I actually really think that blog post should be taken down or at least rewritten. If I was one of the influential folks on this site I'd do it myself, but since I'm not I feel strongly enough about it to note my thoughts on it here. This is the kind of stuff that gave WR a bad name (for a good reason, it's shitty and petty, even if the person you're attacking is shitty and petty themselves) and if this is going to be a serious criticism site then this stuff doesn't belong here, or at least it needs to observe some minimal "rules of engagement"

I don't know if it's just me and my in born cynicism but is Wikipediocracy depreciating into pursuit of petty grudges?

FWIW, I don't think this blog post will have done this site, and what we're trying to accomplish here, any favours.

[Cla68]

FWIW, I don't think this blog post will have done this site, and what we're trying to accomplish here, any favours.

I've been thinking about this, and I disagree. It's a slippery slope that we have to be careful of, but exposing Wikipedia's worst abusers, including their dubious activities on other parts of the Internet, is ok, because all this stuff is related. One of the phenomenons of the Internet is that it attracts these people who use these various forums to push their petty agendas. The best way to get them to stop it, is to shed light on it and them. That doesn't mean that we publish their street address or any nonsense like that, but we do explain who they are and what they have been up to. In this case, we didn't out Russavia, because he has been open on the Internet linking his name to the WP account.

It I get treated so brusquely, I can imagine what it's like for newbie editors.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Honestly, I am a bit disappointed this did not incorporate the "Fucking, Austria" article. This and the fact he tried to get it on the front page like that tells you all you need to know about the man. At the same time Russavia was doing this he was being discussed in the EEML Arbitration case.

[lilburne]

FWIW, I don't think this blog post will have done this site, and what we're trying to accomplish here, any favours.

For what its worth Russavia is one of the gamers on the site. Has invoked the information wants to be free trope against those targeted on WP, and I say what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turn about is to be expected and until the WMF has an effective policy in place, that is applied, then they should all expect similar treatment.

[Tarc]

Honestly, I am a bit disappointed this did not incorporate the "Fucking, Austria" article. This and the fact he tried to get it on the front page like that tells you all you need to know about the man. At the same time Russavia was doing this he was being discussed in the EEML Arbitration case.

I found those to be rather amusing, actually.

[DanMurphy]

This is the sort of thing that goes into the "missed opportunity" category. An editor at Commons has been complaining about Bibby/Russavia's attempted deletion of those pictures from the Polish Senate.

How do you even come to these deletion requests? Do you go through all the photos and look for fineprint that could be grounds to delete them? What are you trying to achieve? Yes I am an inclusionist but I am open to hear the opinions of deletionists as well. So please tell me, what drives you to do that? --Avala (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In short, I found these images by way of going thru my own uploads. So I don't go looking for things to delete, but if I see anything problematic, I am driven only by COM:L and COM:PRP. Anyone is free to contact the Polish Senate and ask for further permission. Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I will state, that I am one of the most inclusionist editors here on Commons; so long as files are all ok from a copyright standpoint, and there is some scope possible for files, then I very rarely delete files from our project. russavia (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that "one of the most inclusionist editors" would nominate 20 files for deletion over something that could be interpreted extensively. Even if he did, it would be hard to imagine he would toss away the opportunity to save those images. On the other hand someone with an agenda to get those deleted, he would surely act in that away. All the best, --Avala (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are clearly stating that I have an agenda. If you don't clarify precisely what agenda you think I have, I will kindly as you to leave my talk page on this issue. And I warn, be very, very careful in your answer. russavia (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my comment, you can just reread it. Your follow up question above is about motives. I don't know and don't want to guess your motives, only you know that. And please don't threaten me.--Avala (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibby was banned from the English Wikipedia for having an agenda -- an anti-Polish one, that has been dealt with over and over for years. But on Commons, mentioning this would be a "personal attack" and Bibby would have the complainer blocked for it. The person with an agenda, and a stronger social network, has the upper hand thanks to their rules.

[Volunteer Marek]

This is the sort of thing that goes into the "missed opportunity" category. An editor at Commons has been complaining about Bibby/Russavia's attempted deletion of those pictures from the Polish Senate.

How do you even come to these deletion requests? Do you go through all the photos and look for fineprint that could be grounds to delete them? What are you trying to achieve? Yes I am an inclusionist but I am open to hear the opinions of deletionists as well. So please tell me, what drives you to do that? --Avala (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In short, I found these images by way of going thru my own uploads. So I don't go looking for things to delete, but if I see anything problematic, I am driven only by COM:L and COM:PRP. Anyone is free to contact the Polish Senate and ask for further permission. Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I will state, that I am one of the most inclusionist editors here on Commons; so long as files are all ok from a copyright standpoint, and there is some scope possible for files, then I very rarely delete files from our project. russavia (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that "one of the most inclusionist editors" would nominate 20 files for deletion over something that could be interpreted extensively. Even if he did, it would be hard to imagine he would toss away the opportunity to save those images. On the other hand someone with an agenda to get those deleted, he would surely act in that away. All the best, --Avala (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are clearly stating that I have an agenda. If you don't clarify precisely what agenda you think I have, I will kindly as you to leave my talk page on this issue. And I warn, be very, very careful in your answer. russavia (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my comment, you can just reread it. Your follow up question above is about motives. I don't know and don't want to guess your motives, only you know that. And please don't threaten me.--Avala (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibby was banned from the English Wikipedia for having an agenda -- an anti-Polish one, that has been dealt with over and over for years. But on Commons, mentioning this would be a "personal attack" and Bibby would have the complainer blocked for it. The person with an agenda, and a stronger social network, has the upper hand thanks to their rules.

See, this is the right kind of criticism - which focuses on Russavia's messed up behavior (on Commons or en-Wiki) rather than his personal life. Anyway, I'm pretty sure there's a pretty strong correlation between Russavia being mentioned by myself, or this site, and his Poland-related-deletion sprees. Around the time of his banning from en-wiki for the Polandball thing, he went after Piotrus' uploads (basically freedom of panorama questions in regards to buildings and architecture - borderline, and there's a buttload of photos on Commons that have exact same issues which he didn't even touch). He didn't go after my uploads because I haven't uploaded much there and what little I did, is either my own work or very clearly PD. And he thinks Piotrus, another Polish editor, is my friend, so... revenge deletions. In other words, this is exactly the kind of crap that Pieter supposedly was guilty of. But Pieter got railroaded and Russavia is a Commons insider.

[Mason]

See, this is the right kind of criticism - which focuses on Russavia's messed up behavior (on Commons or en-Wiki) rather than his personal life. Anyway, I'm pretty sure there's a pretty strong correlation between Russavia being mentioned by myself, or this site, and his Poland-related-deletion sprees. Around the time of his banning from en-wiki for the Polandball thing, he went after Piotrus' uploads (basically freedom of panorama questions in regards to buildings and architecture - borderline, and there's a buttload of photos on Commons that have exact same issues which he didn't even touch). He didn't go after my uploads because I haven't uploaded much there and what little I did, is either my own work or very clearly PD. And he thinks Piotrus, another Polish editor, is my friend, so... revenge deletions. In other words, this is exactly the kind of crap that Pieter supposedly was guilty of. But Pieter got railroaded and Russavia is a Commons insider.

Well, that brings up a philosophical question, doesn't it? If taunting a racist troll who happens to be in a position of power results in them acting out on their racist trollish tendencies, is it a good thing to taunt them (in that gets them more quickly recognized as a racist troll, and possibly closer to being removed from the position of power) or a bad thing (because of the collateral damage to the innocent victims of the racist trolling)?

And if you're a "hasten the day" type (I am not), do the good and bad options flip, as leaving the racist troll in place is likely to damage the institution of which they are a part?

So much to ponder.

[EricBarbour]

Well, that brings up a philosophical question, doesn't it? If taunting a racist troll who happens to be in a position of power results in them acting out on their racist trollish tendencies, is it a good thing to taunt them (in that gets them more quickly recognized as a racist troll, and possibly closer to being removed from the position of power) or a bad thing (because of the collateral damage to the innocent victims of the racist trolling)?

And if you're a "hasten the day" type (I am not), do the good and bad options flip, as leaving the racist troll in place is likely to damage the institution of which they are a part?

It would have an effect, if anyone outside the insular little Wiki-World noticed it.

That's why I'm co-writing a book, not just posting links to WP messes on this forum/blog site. Ultimately there's no point to criticizing
Wikipedia unless the masses who use it as a "reference" have a chance to see your criticism. This is an area where many of the
personalities on this forum, and on Wikipedia Review before it, fall down badly.

I can well understand why the Russavia blog post was written as it was. Mr. Bibby's real identity was well-known among Wikipedia
and Commons insiders, given that it was used repeatedly on the Wikimediaau-l mailing list. So "outing" claims are spurious at best.

The hope was that the wide world might happen across that post after a web search, and think for a while about Commons.

Since it's still early days, we can't judge this yet. The ideal follow-up would be a blog post either pointing out other problems
with Commons, or one that showed how commonplace it is now for mainstream news and information outlets, including
for-pay corporations, to reuse Commons imagery. That is never, ever discussed outside this forum, and rarely discussed in it.
Not to mention copyright violations on Commons. Today they are doing a fair job of policing copyright for NEW posted images,
but millions of images were posted before they started to crack down seriously in 2008-09. Many of those older images have
never been checked, and with the dysfunction of Commons and its crackpot "administration", they probably never will be checked.

The operators of Wikipediocracy are trying to generate search-engine activity to this forum and blog. It's very difficult today, thanks
to the many years of blind uncritical treatment of WP by media and internet mavens. It is a long-term battle, a war of attrition.

Disagree if you must, I tend to see the Russavia post as a possible net positive, years down the line,long after people have
forgotten about the controversy over that post.

[HRIP7]

Well, that brings up a philosophical question, doesn't it? If taunting a racist troll who happens to be in a position of power results in them acting out on their racist trollish tendencies, is it a good thing to taunt them (in that gets them more quickly recognized as a racist troll, and possibly closer to being removed from the position of power) or a bad thing (because of the collateral damage to the innocent victims of the racist trolling)?

And if you're a "hasten the day" type (I am not), do the good and bad options flip, as leaving the racist troll in place is likely to damage the institution of which they are a part?

It would have an effect, if anyone outside the insular little Wiki-World noticed it.

That's why I'm co-writing a book, not just posting links to WP messes on this forum/blog site. Ultimately there's no point to criticizing
Wikipedia unless the masses who use it as a "reference" have a chance to see your criticism. This is an area where many of the
personalities on this forum, and on Wikipedia Review before it, fall down badly.

I can well understand why the Russavia blog post was written as it was. Mr. Bibby's real identity was well-known among Wikipedia
and Commons insiders, given that it was used repeatedly on the Wikimediaau-l mailing list. So "outing" claims are spurious at best.

The hope was that the wide world might happen across that post after a web search, and think for a while about Commons.

Since it's still early days, we can't judge this yet. The ideal follow-up would be a blog post either pointing out other problems
with Commons, or one that showed how commonplace it is now for mainstream news and information outlets, including
for-pay corporations, to reuse Commons imagery. That is never, ever discussed outside this forum, and rarely discussed in it.
Not to mention copyright violations on Commons. Today they are doing a fair job of policing copyright for NEW posted images,
but millions of images were posted before they started to crack down seriously in 2008-09. Many of those older images have
never been checked, and with the dysfunction of Commons and its crackpot "administration", they probably never will be checked.

The operators of Wikipediocracy are trying to generate search-engine activity to this forum and blog. It's very difficult today, thanks
to the many years of blind uncritical treatment of WP by media and internet mavens. It is a long-term battle, a war of attrition.

Disagree if you must, I tend to see the Russavia post as a possible net positive, years down the line,long after people have
forgotten about the controversy over that post.

The cost-benefit ratio of the post is not brill. It's an insider story. I don't see that most of its content would be of wider interest beyond Wikipedians and Wikipedia critics. To be effective, we need to focus on stories that are of interest to journalists and the general public.

I am against outing people on this site unless there is a clear and demonstrable public interest, as there was in the Beta M case for example. The subject of this post is not quite in that league, and it would have been better to stick to on-wiki stuff, and critique that.

[The Devil's Advocate]

On a side note, seems Russavia actually added two links to his perfume business, with another being at the article he created on Slava Zaitsev (T-H-L). Seren removed each link a year ago.

[Hersch]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

I just inserted the "irony" emoticon -- do people find that to be an improvement?

[Alison]

Cla's blocking posts split to this thread, per request.

[SB_Johnny]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

I just inserted the "irony" emoticon -- do people find that to be an improvement?

Like rain on your wedding day?

[Hersch]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

I just inserted the "irony" emoticon -- do people find that to be an improvement?

Like rain on your wedding day?

That doesn't sound especially encouraging. Should I remove it?

[Moonage Daydream]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

I just inserted the "irony" emoticon -- do people find that to be an improvement?

Like rain on your wedding day?

That doesn't sound especially encouraging. Should I remove it?

I know you meant well, but I think it looks awful. Suggest rewording instead if it really is a problem.

[TungstenCarbide]

I am against outing people on this site unless there is a clear and demonstrable public interest, as there was in the Beta M case for example. The subject of this post is not quite in that league, and it would have been better to stick to on-wiki stuff, and critique that.

I generally sympathize with Wikipedia's policies on editor's privacy, but even that isn't set in stone as demonstrated by BetaM's case.

Russavia's identity was necessary to show the conflict of interest editing. Also, he's self identified in multiple places. WO shouldn't be beating itself up over this.

[DanMurphy]

This is a good example of the vigor and sleaze with which Bibby pursued his "Polandball" campaign after his one year block from the English Wikipedia. This is at the tiny project for the Picard dialect:

Hi Russavia, I am not sure your articles really encyclopedia-compatbile because it is the reason why he was deleted on main wikipedias (english and german for example). You can nevertheless upload your photos on Common. Regards, Tobovs (discussion) 29 d'Octobe 2012 à 22:11 (UTC)

hi tobovs, thanks for your message. The article on English Wikipedia was deleted due to wikipolitics -- it Saw major involvement from EEML editors -- EEML is an arbitration case on enwp about a nationalist mailing list which was set up to subvert consensus on the project, As o which harassed myself in an attempt to have me banned from the project. EEML editors actively accused me of falsifyingi information in the article, and a lot of other false accusations and lies. Another group of editors is from wikipediocracy.com -- an internet forum belonging to Gregory kohs, who is indefinitely banned from enwp -- the problem these trolls have with me is that as an admin and bureaucrat on commons, I am one of the few admins who will close sexuality-related deletion requests, and always do so based upon policy, much to their chagrin. I have also actively stood up for editors who have been harassed by the wikipediocracy crowd --- so this makes me one their targets. Please read the AFD on enwp in full, and you will see a lot personal attacks on myself --- the worst of which was I could "fuck off with my queer agenda" -- at the same time as this AFD I was holding English Wikipedia arbitration committee to task after one arb came to my talk page and threatened to block me for an inane comment I made to another editor on my talk page--- the same editor who was subjected to what myself and many others saw as homophobic harassment -- harassment which arbcom was aware of, and which they ignored --- so it was quite odd that an arbcom member would threaten to block me for harassing an editor when it was the same editor whom I was vocal in standing up against the homophobic harassmelt levelled againstead them, yet arbcom knowingly did nothing about real harassment. So I made them publicly answer questions they would rather avoid. polandball not being a queersubject, the personal attack had no place -- the editor who made the attack against me had previously been warned against harassing me And has a long history of personal and derogatory attacks on LGBT editors. After I complained about this Attack the editor was blocked for a week, and a matter of hours later was ufnblocked and the admin who unblocked them then rushed to push to block me for six months...all because i created the polandball article.

So please understand the deletion on English Wikipedia had nothing to do with notability, but everything to do with petty battleground behaviour and grudges, as well as outright hatred. Whilst the German Wikipedia article was deleted, the reasoning followed the "English Wikipedia deleted it should we." line.

It should also be noted that the article wad also kept on two other main language wikipedias ... Russian and Chinese Wikipedias -- the Russian AFD was closed by a bureaucrat on that project.

The article also exists on 50 projects so far, with the Polish version to be placed into namespace in the couple of days. Many of the articles have been translated by admins and other sysops on other projects, and whom we're aware of the deletion on enwp and could clearly tell it was a wrong deletion, and I was untreated fairly...not only have I been blocked for 13 months, but I have also been indefinitely topic banned from eastern Europe topics, all because of polandball --- I am one most productive and neutral editors in this area! I refuse to appeal the block or topic ban!

So, you might ask why I am trying to collaborate with editors on other projects to get polandball translated. Since I am now essentially banished from English Wikipedia, and topics I would normally work on on Russian Wikipedia already exist, I am turning to other projects to have what I and many other projects believe is a notable subject. and as in incentive to help with translating I am uploading to commons aviation photos specific to that project. I have access to over 250,000 photos all of which need to be individually uploaded...mostly myself. So my collaboration is simply fast tracking my priority in uploads. It is likely that they would be uploaded eventually, but perhaps in several years. at no stage have I asked anyone to do anything against the goals of the project, but the information I have presented above paints quite a different picture to the wikipolitics-ridden deletion on English Wikipedia.

So I ask that editors please excuse the long reply, but you should know the entire story, especially if you thought I was going to be a disruptive presence on this project. I am here in good faith and will continue to be into the future. :-) - Russavia

This attempt to baffle the administrator there with bullshit failed.

I really don't see the link between LGBT and Polandball, and the link between your banishment and the deletion of your article on english Wikipedia. But, those are english Wikipedia problems, and we are not on english wikipedia. The problem is not that your article was deleted by english wikipedia alone. The problem is, it was also deleted on other major wikipedia, such german and dutch wikipedias. I read the deletion thread on those wikipedias ; what I found on german wikipedia (for example) is totally different about you said...

[Hersch]

I still say leading with "Let’s meet Scott Bibby, one of Wikipediocracy’s biggest fans" will confuse at least half of unfamiliar readers into thinking that Bibby is actually a "fan" of our site. Terrible lead, and I said so already. I guess it didn't get amended.

I just inserted the "irony" emoticon -- do people find that to be an improvement?

Like rain on your wedding day?

That doesn't sound especially encouraging. Should I remove it?

I know you meant well, but I think it looks awful. Suggest rewording instead if it really is a problem.

OK, I took a shot at it.

[SB_Johnny]

I am against outing people on this site unless there is a clear and demonstrable public interest, as there was in the Beta M case for example. The subject of this post is not quite in that league, and it would have been better to stick to on-wiki stuff, and critique that.

+1

The polandball, EEML, and pervy commons stuff in relation to how they corrupt the "projects" are on-topic, but this blog post focused almost entirely on what a seedy guy he is otherwise. If the only thing people have to do to get a blog post about them here is to troll the forum or be otherwise annoying to one or more of our members, we lose credibility (especially when discussing BLPs).

[Peter Damian]

The polandball, EEML, and pervy commons stuff in relation to how they corrupt the "projects" are on-topic, but this blog post focused almost entirely on what a seedy guy he is otherwise.

Can you explain 'almost entirely'? The post should really have started with "Why should you care about Scott Bibby?", as an example of some of Wikipedia’s entrenched cultural problems, and clearly explained why each of the cases justified that. For example, the bit about 'masturbation hurts' was a good example of how female contributors are bullied, and also an example of how Jimmy does not intervene to stop the bullying even when on his talk page*. The polandball and EEML stuff was an example of how people edit Wikipedia not for the purpose of bringing knowledge to the world, but to continue nationalistic disputes. The opening part about identifying him was poor style, of interest to a Wikipedia forum only, and should have been relegated to a footnote. But that's an issue of style only. The perfume business was a good example Wikipedian insiders promoting material that paid editors would have been banned for. Perhaps that conflict of interest should have been spelled out better, but that is style again.

The only borderline subject, to my mind, was the russiansafetycards thing. But that was not almost entirely the focus of the article. What planet are you on Johnny?



*I think I'm right that he did not delete it?

[SB_Johnny]

The polandball, EEML, and pervy commons stuff in relation to how they corrupt the "projects" are on-topic, but this blog post focused almost entirely on what a seedy guy he is otherwise.

Can you explain 'almost entirely'? The post should really have started with "Why should you care about Scott Bibby?", as an example of some of Wikipedia’s entrenched cultural problems, and clearly explained why each of the cases justified that. For example, the bit about 'masturbation hurts' was a good example of how female contributors are bullied, and also an example of how Jimmy does not intervene to stop the bullying even when on his talk page*. The polandball and EEML stuff was an example of how people edit Wikipedia not for the purpose of bringing knowledge to the world, but to continue nationalistic disputes. The opening part about identifying him was poor style, of interest to a Wikipedia forum only, and should have been relegated to a footnote. But that's an issue of style only. The perfume business was a good example Wikipedian insiders promoting material that paid editors would have been banned for. Perhaps that conflict of interest should have been spelled out better, but that is style again.

The only borderline subject, to my mind, was the russiansafetycards thing. But that was not almost entirely the focus of the article.

Fair enough, half the article then, which was the leading half, was , while the EEML stuff wasn't detailed. He's also blocked already on WP (so a weak example of the entrenched cultural problems), and while he's certainly part of the admin cabal on commons, he's far from the worst (looks to be more of a follower than a leader from what I could find). He does clearly really hate Wikipediocracy and loves to torment our contributors, but that doesn't strike me as a relevant criteria.

What planet are you on Johnny?

Earth.

[Zoloft]

Herostratus posts moved here: link