• @TheGrandNagus
    link
    English
    271 month ago

    Banned user Russavia edited two of the oligarch articles. He was a very active administrator on Wikimedia Commons, who specialized in promoting the Russian aviation industry, and in disrupting the English-language Wikipedia.

    After finally being banned on the English Wikipedia, he created dozens of sockpuppets. Russavia, by almost all accounts, is not a citizen or resident of Russia, but his edits raise some concern and show some patterns.

    In 2010, he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses. He also made 148 edits at Russo-Georgian War, and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

    Idk, when you’re using Wikipedia as a tool to push Russian propaganda, it seems fair that you’d be banned. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. He’s free to start russopedia.ru or whatever if he wants to do that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      the ridiculously detailed

      An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.

      • @Passerby6497
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Kinda burying the lede on that complaint…

        and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

        Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 month ago

          I read it as adding a bunch of superfluous details that were biased.

          • @Passerby6497
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?

            Seems like a distinction without a difference.

            • JackbyDev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 month ago

              I didn’t imply those were different, I don’t get your point.

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        reads almost like it’s talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to “be wrong” to me

      • @TheGrandNagus
        link
        English
        21 month ago

        I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.