Talk:Sheriff (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Vladimir Smirnov and Sheriff 2 Ownership claims refuted 3 Did Smirnov ever denied Sheriff ownership? 4 BBC 5 MariusM engaged in meatpuppetry 6 User:William Mauco engaged in meatpuppetry 7 Citation 8 Criticism section 9 Ties to Renewal 10 Disruption, misleading edit statements 11 Vandalism 12 Edit warring 13 Restoring deleted text 14 Astroturfing sources 15 My objections 16 What a nutty thing 17 My compromise piece 2.0 18 Company 19 Political dealings 20 Notes and References 21 Comments on compromise piece 22 Sources that proves links between Smirnov's family and Sheriff 23 That troublesome third sentence 24 When you two are unblocked

[edit] Vladimir Smirnov and Sheriff

We should remove the claims that Vladimir Smirnov owns or controls Sheriff because they have been discredited. It is actually one of those rare issues where both Moldova and Transnistria agree on something. Moldpres News Agency, the state news agency of the Republic of Moldova, published an article[1] which analyzes the friction between Yevgeny Shevchuk (whom they see as the representative or "puppet" of Sheriff) on one hand, and Igor Smirnov on the other. It includes the following: "They have a very big business, which is vulnerable to the region’s executive power. If it is to take into consideration that Shevchuk has no political biography of his own, then it is obvious that Smirnov, Vladimir Antyufeyev and the entire executive power do not struggle with the speaker, but with Sheriff’s economic power and political ambitions." This contradicts the previous claims that Sheriff is owned by Vladimir Smirnov, Igor Smirnov's son. In the same article: "Sheriff realizes that if the power ... will push hard on it, nobody physically will be able to help it" and "the attack against the centre started by discrediting Sheriff’s potential candidate to the presidential seat". In light of this, we should not be repeating claims from 2004 which have been denied by both Transnistria's official state news agency and by Moldova's state news agency. BBC and Washington Times wrote it but wouldn't it be fair to assume that their journalists know significantly less about the region than the official news agencies of Moldova and Transnistria combined? - Mauco 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to original article: http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=ru&ID=46774 from Moldpres, Moldova's state owned news agency. Clarify the article to underscore that Sheriff is not owned by the Smirnovs. - Mauco 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the fact that Shevchuk is following Smirnov's political line, not about who are the stockholders of Sheriff. Yes, Shevchuk is Smirnov's preapproved opposition, we knew that, what is the rellevance?--MariusM 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way "pre-approved"? Are you even aware of the huge struggle in parliament in Spring of 2005? MariusM, if you could read Russian, then you would know that Sheriff is fighting tooth and nail behind the scenes. They are trying to keep it out of the headlines but the opposition press regularly comments on this struggle. Besides, what part of the Moldpress (official state news agency of Moldova) article do you not understand? This part: "Sheriff realizes that if the power ... will push hard on it, nobody physically will be able to help it" or the statement that Smirnov struggles with Sheriff’s economic power and political ambitions? - Mauco 14:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that Moldpres is a reliable source for you. But you still miss my point: we don't have the stockholders list of Sheriff.--MariusM 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we don't. This is precisely why no one can claim that Smirnov is an owner or shareholder of Sheriff. - Mauco 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership claims refuted

An important part of the public image of Sheriff in English (the language of this part of Wikipedia) is the wrongful and unproven ties to Smirnov. In fact, I would argue that it is the most important facet. Therefore, to not comment on this elephant in the room would be an error. If we strive to make accurate articles, the ownership issue must be addressed in mainspace and not "whitewashed" or omitted. Comments? - Mauco 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You agreed that we don't know the stockholders of Sheriff. As long as we don't have info, we can not put such a denial in the article. Come with proofs (but not from Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net and such, and only then you can include the denial in the article.--MariusM 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have rephrased the paragraph now, in order to reflect this concern of yours. - Mauco 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It don't reflect my concern. As long as we don't have data, we should not make any mention, either to confirm or to deny Smirnov family ownership in Sheriff. Nowhere in the article is mentioned any accusation about Smirnov, why you want to deny it? The Frenchs are saying: "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse".--MariusM 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Because, and I have to repeat myself: An important part of the public image of Sheriff in English (the language of this part of Wikipedia) is the wrongful and unproven ties to Smirnov. - Mauco 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't prove is wrongful.--MariusM 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[2] Here is what the latest version says:

"Despite previous accusations to the contrary, there have never been any tangible indications that the company is owned, even in part, by the family of president Igor Smirnov. Such claims have consistently been denied by Igor Smirnov as well as his son Vladimir Smirnov, and Moldpres (the state news agency of Moldova) points to political and economic strife between Sheriff's owners and the government of Transnistria. At this point in time, no credible analysts any longer claim that there are ownership ties linking the Smirnov family to Sheriff."

If you have a problem with this, please state what in this paragraph is incorrect and I will certainly be glad to work with you. Otherwise, don't use sockpuppets or meatpuppets to delete it[3] and thus protect yourself from 3RR. You are quick to accuse others of 3RR[4] but you have no qualms yourself in doing everything it takes to bend the rules and circumvent Wikipedia policy in this matter.- Mauco 02:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the logs. There are tangible indications (newspapers articles), we don't know if those are correct. Moldpress is not more reliable than BBC and it didn't wrote anything about Sheriff ownership (is misleading what you tell), it only make assumptions (probably wrong) about a conflict between Sheriff and Smirnov.--MariusM 13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Addition: I don't agree with your definition of "credible analyst".--MariusM 13:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What logs are those? Please give links. I am well aware of the public reputation of Sheriff. It started as part of a Moldovan information war against Transnistria. I am also well aware that it has no factual basis. It would be wrong to perpetuate a fallacy. With regards to Moldpres and the other articles in general, we are not censoring anything, but merely setting the record straight. At this point in time, there is not a single credible analyst who can still say that there are any ownership ties between Sheriff and Smirnov. If you find one, let me know. Do not, however, participate in internet-spreading ignorance. Where are the tangible indications? The claims are incorrect. Or, if you want it bluntly, they are bullshit. We do not have to have evidence that it is bullshit. It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. - Mauco 17:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for your answer. Please give links. Please indicate the tangible indications. It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct, not the job of the rest of us to prove that they are incorrect. - Mauco 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see only one side of the story - "Despite previous accusations to the contrary, there have never been...."
article should be written in NPOV EvilAlex 12:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You may make suggestions as for what you would like to include. However, since this has proven to be a controversial and has even attracted a share of vandalism, may I kindly suggest that you discuss your changes here in Talk with the rest of us before incorporating them. Remember, however, that you must be able to source everything and reference it, and that you will be held to normal Wikipedia standards. - Mauco 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point out what, if anything, is not true about the following paragprah -

"Despite previous accusations to the contrary, there have never been any tangible indications that the company is owned, even in part, by the family of president Igor Smirnov. Such claims have consistently been denied by Igor Smirnov as well as his son Vladimir Smirnov, and Moldpres (the state news agency of Moldova) points to political and economic strife between Sheriff's owners and the government of Transnistria. At this point in time, no credible analysts any longer claim that there are ownership ties linking the Smirnov family to Sheriff."

If anyone knows of any credible analysts who are able to provide such a link, please replace the last sentence of the paragprah which actual, verifiable info. - Mauco 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You just repeat the same paragraph. I already answered, read this talk page.--MariusM 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am slow. If you can not point out anything which is factually incorrect, the paragraph goes back into the article. However, in the interest of consensus, I am asking other editors first -- here on the Talk page. - Mauco 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This BBC article is an indication that Sheriff is owned, at least in part, by the family of the president. I didn't push to include this claim in the article, but I don't agree with a denial as long as we don't have a stockholders list of Sheriff. As you are the person who ask to include a paragraph with denial, is your duty to prove that the denial is correct.--MariusM 22:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a novel interpretation of WP:V. I am sorry, but ... the answer is no. - Mauco 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Smirnov ever denied Sheriff ownership?

I didn't see any refference at a formal denial of Smirnov about Sheriff ownership by him or his family. I think at something like Clinton's statement "I never had sex with that women". Do you, Mauco, have such a refference?--MariusM 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that there was something in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin recently. They sent two journalists to Transnistria and wrote about several things, including Sheriff's ownership. Since you can read German, you could check up on that for us and report back here what it says. - Mauco 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that I can read German? You are the one who want to include denial, you should come with the refference. Don't send me to dig.--MariusM 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that you can read German, based on some of your work on other websites (not Wikipedia). Anyway, I am not prepared to do your research for you. I am quite happy to know that no one, not a single credible analyst, is claiming any Smirnov-Sheriff ties anymore. It is an old fallacy which time simply has disproven. - Mauco 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't read German. You are the one who want to include in the article the "Such claims have consistently been denied by Igor Smirnov as well as his son Vladimir Smirnov", than you should provide refferences. In fact, it seems that you want to deny a thing that Smirnov himself never denied.--MariusM 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, then, regarding the German. Based on my info, I was under the firm impression that you were actually quite fluent in German. And yes, you are certainly correct that the burden of evidence is on the person who includes the sentence to provide sources for the statement that both Igor and Vladimir have denied this if the sentence is still in the article (which it is currently not). Meanwhile, since it is not, I am not prepared to do your research for you. If that sentence goes back in, at some point in the future, I will of course be glad to cite the sources. - Mauco 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC

The BBC article which is referenced in this Talk page is available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3586815.stm for anyone who wants to read it. One of the Wikipedia editors, Bogdan, has already contacted Lucy Ash for fact clarification, as per my request. - Mauco 14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MariusM engaged in meatpuppetry

WP:SOCK is official policy of Wikipedia. Among other things, it deals with meatpuppets and states that meat puppets are treated similarly to sock puppets. They should not be solicited to circumvent things like 3RR restrictions which are in place for a reason. Quote: "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate." Nevertheless, this is what User:MariusM did here:[5] at 22:59. He wrote in Romanian so English-only readers would not understand the request. He explained that he needed User:EvilAlex to delete a paragraph so that he (MariusM) wouldn't be caught for WP:3RR. Then, at 23:25, EvilAlex did as he was told[6] with a misleading edit comment. Minutes later, at 23:31, MariusM then returned and deleted the evidence of his request[7], overwriting it with a meaningless comment on something else and a misleading edit log entry. - Mauco 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:William Mauco engaged in meatpuppetry

Mauco, you enjoy playing with meatpuppets [8]. Don't pretend you are virgin. You are one of my teachers about how to work on Wikipedia, as I have little experience here.--MariusM 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So, now seeking a third opinion - in this case, an expert opinion from a top scholar - is all of a sudden "meatpuppetry"? Please do not distort my edit record, or compare it to the behavior of your tag-team with EvilAlex and your subsquent cover-up and deletion of your Wikipedia violations. - Mauco 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

According to FoxNews, "a giant sports complex that reportedly cost around $200 million went up a few years ago on the outskirts of Tiraspol".

Actually, this wasn't from Fox News. It was from Associated Press (AP syndicates to hundreds of news services, and Fox is just one of those who reprint). The original source was the official site that was mentioned in that article, so it would be best to simply link there. I will do that for you now. - Mauco 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I saw Magiozal added this new section: "The mass media of America, Britain, Romania and Moldova (whose governments are strongly against Transnistrian independence) usually are highly critical of Sheriff’s activities, and articles in magazines[2] and news websites[3] showing accusations against both Sheriff, the government of Transnistria and even the right of existence of this still-non-recognized country are very common."

I have some problems with this paragraph:

• In Romania I can testify that mass-media is not "usually" critical on Sheriff, is rather ignoring this company. There were one or two articles, but is not "very common" for Romanian mass-media to write about Sheriff, is not such an important subject. I believe same is true to Britain and America. Probabily only in Moldova mass-media is mentioning Sheriff more, but even there mostly in the broader problem of Transnistrian conflict.
• No need to highlight the fact that above mentioned countries are against Transnistrian independence, as we have an other article about this issue and those are not the only countries which don't recognize Transnistria. Articles in magazines and websites against Sheriff are not a consequence of an order from the governments of those countries, mass media is free and reports on their own.
• As this article is about Sheriff, this is not the place where to mention who accuse the government of Transnistria and is against the right of existence of this "still-non-recognized country". We should concentrate only on Sheriff. There are indications that this company is linked with the political power in Transnistria, we should mention that, but the thoughts about the right of existence of Transnistria as separate country have no proper place here.--MariusM 01:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am partly with Magiozal on this one, and partly with MariusM. As I have argued in this Talk page (see above), I feel that it is important to point out that the smear propaganda about the Smirnov links is just a bunch of unproven speculation. I still have the position that a mention to this effect is relevant in an article about Sheriff since it is a big part of the company's public image, for good or for worse.

At the same time, like MariusM says, this is not the right place for a wider treatment of how Transnistria is treated in the Western media. I am not sure whether that should go in the main article, or in a separate article on this subject, or not be covered anyone on Wikipedia at all. That can be discussed, although this Talk page is clearly not the place (in my opinion). - Mauco 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ties to Renewal

I will not support an edit which includes Sheriff's ties to the party Renewal in an effort to imply that it is connected to president Igor Smirnov. If Renewal has to be mentioned in this article, we must mention the public and widely documented clashes of this political party with the president and the cabinet, and the many sources which document that this political party is an opposition party (in fact, the largest opposition party in Transnistria). I am not sure that a mention of political ties are relevant, but if other editors think so, then at least we must present a summary of the full story. In this summary, the opposition status is the most important detail, as it sheds light on why Sheriff has invested time and money in political activities, and can not be left out. - Mauco 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument. Nowhere was mentioned Smirnov in the paragraph you reverted. The mention was about undeniable ties between Sheriff and Renewal, the main party in Transnistria. Regarding Smirnov, I don't know exactly if he has ties with Sheriff. I suppose yes, as reliable sources, like BBC, wrote about it and he never denied AFAIK. However, in order to avoid edit wars, I refrained myself on introducing in the main space any mention about the link between Smirnov and Sheriff.--MariusM 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish that you would debate this seriously, instead of calling it a straw man argument. I am a sorry, but this sort of a pissing match reminds me of open Usenet trolling. Either we tell the whole story about Sheriff-Renewal, and especially the key point (that they are in hard opposition to Smirnov) or else you leave out any mention of that. Your choice. - Mauco 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose to include a statement as "Sheriff is in hard opposition against Smirnov", as: (i)this is a private company, not a political party; (ii)Statement is not true. Renewal oposition against Smirnov is debatable, corect place for debate being Renewal article talk page. For a company like Sheriff, claiming that is in oposition is ridiculous. Even if Renewal oposition is real (stil to be proven), is very posibile that a private company like Sheriff want good relations with everybody. I give you an example from the wonderfull Romanian democracy that you admire so much: Dinu Patriciu, a Romanian bussinessman, owns companies which contributed with money not only to the Liberal Party, but also to the Social Democrat Party (while those parties are "enemies"). Same can be true for Sheriff - they can support any important political movement in Transnistria, is like an assurance for any possible future. This is what smart bussinessmen do in Eastern Europe. Sheriff links with Renewal - undeniable, Sherif links with Smirnov - I would say 90% probable.--MariusM 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No such statement was proposed. It was a talk-page argument. The rest of your paragraph is a lot of speculation about Sheriff, based on the unrelated case of Patriciu in Romania. If any of that is to be included anywhere, bring sources please. - Mauco 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no valid argument from your side. Actual article is factually correct, you want to add irrelevant and dubious info.--MariusM 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Such as? - Mauco 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Komersant article that I discovered thanks to Mauco, shows that Sheriff suported Smirnov regime and received favours from it.--MariusM 10:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Very valid info. I have cleaned it up and made it neutral now, but the info can stay. I also fixed a spelling mistake for you. Meanwhile, could you please answer the question above: You claim that I want to add irrevelant and dubious info. I need to know what this is. Such as? When you make these sort of assertations about others, you have to be able to back them up. Otherwise, it is irresponsible to throw out such claims and you should refrain from doing so in the future, please. - Mauco 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of dubious and irrelevent info added through your edit: [9]. I explained several times, why is so difficult for you to understand? Opposition between Renewal and Smirnov is both irrelevant and dubious information. Irrelevant, because we are at the article about Sheriff, not about Renewal. Sherif is a private company and the fact that some of its employees are MPs for Renewal is rellevant, but this does not mean that Sheriff itself confront Smirnov. There can be other employees of Sheriff who support other political movements than Renewal - do you think employment at Sheriff is conditioned by political view? If yes, please provide source. Opposition between Renewal and Smirnov itself is dubious, as Renewal didn't put a candidature against Smirnov. You remind me about a person who claim that Cuba is a true democracy. I asked him: can you be against Castro and he told me "Yes. Castro support death penalty but it was a person who spoke in Cuban parliament against death penalty". True opposition does not mean in a small issue you are critic against the boss. True opposition mean you want to oust the boss. In Cuba is no legal oposition because nobody is allowed to ask the overthrown of Castro's regime (I am not talking about his recent illness problem, when himself agree to step back). Renewal is not in confrontation against Smirnov because it never made an attempt to oust Smirnov - like to put a candidature against him or to support an other candidature. Differences in small issues are not relevant. Coming back to Sheriff, I remind you that, AFAIK, Smirnov never denied that his family is holding at least a part of Sheriff.--MariusM 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources proving the links to Sheriff between and Renewal. There are also dozens of sources showing the very real opposition between Smirnov and Renewal/Sheriff. If we can source it, it can go in the article. So I remind you of the person who thinks that Cuba is a democracy? Whatever ... it really doesn't matter what I remind you of. It ALSO does not matter what your own personal definition of "true democracy" is. What matters here are the statements in the article. If they conform to Wikipedia policy, you can not remove them, regardless of whether or not you personally agree with them. You have made it abundantly clear that your personal political opinions are different. This, however, does not give you deletion rights on Wikipedia. Learn that, please. - Mauco 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption, misleading edit statements

This DIFF shows disruptive behavior: [10], compounded with the use of a misleading edit statement. If someone feels that there are items in the article which are not supported by the provided sources, please CHECK THE SOURCES first. Then, if there is still doubt, raise the issue on the Talk page, please. Do not continue with disruptions. - Mauco 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I already explained in this talk page why info you want to add is irrelevant and dubious. Regarding Kazmaly, is enough to mention once in the article that he is a founder of the company, why you want to mention twice?--MariusM 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He was listed before as an employee, which was clearly wrong. As for the "irrelevant" statements, please list them (just copy paste from the article, to make it easier for you). I will then, gladly, explain why I believe that they are relevant. Secondly, please do the same for the "dubious" statements. I will then provide sources to document why they are not dubious. Be specific in your criticism. We are discussing the article. It is NOT enough to just say "read the talk page". Point out specific errors in the current version of the article, if you want something to be changed or removed. - Mauco 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"company now supports Renewal" is a dubious comment. Company has ties with Renewal, indeed, but that doesn't prove that it support this political party. The company can have ties with other political parties as well. Is like saying "McDonalds supports Republican Party of USA" only because some employees of McDonalds are members of Republican Party. And, I repeat: this is not the article about Renewal, the policy of Renewal toward Smirnov is irrelevant. If we can not agree about the strategy of Renewal regarding Smirnov, at least to agree that this article is not the place for such explanations.--MariusM 01:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to keep a statement that the company has political ties, then we must explain which of the sides that it has political ties to. In this case, the ties are clearly documented: Renewal, a party which pursues a policy in opposition to the government of president Igor Smirnov. This is documented with ample sources from Transnistria itself, from Moldova, and from the West. However, if you want to remove all mentions of the companies political ties, that is also acceptable. What is not acceptable is to include only part of the truth, and leave out the most important part: Namely the reason why the company supports a party, which is vastly different from the POV-motivated insinuation that it still has ties to (or supports) the president. - Mauco 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Political ties are a fact, and in "my" version of the article is clearly indicated Renewal. I never denied that there are ties between Sheriff and Renewal. But I disagree that Sheriff has political ties ONLY with Renewall (see the article where is mentioned Vladimir Smirnov, see BBC article previously disscussed in this talk page) and also I disagre with your view about the kind of policy Renewal is pursuing. Anyhow, remember this is not an article about Renewall.--MariusM 02:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is not an article about Renewal, then either remove all mentions or present the full picture of the situation, as per the sources. They clearly show that Renewal is in opposition to Smirnov, yet you removed that because you are letting your own opinion of Renewal, Sheriff and Smirnov influence the article, and letting it override the sources. You must not let your own views influence the article when sources say something completely opposite to your own personal "take" on this political issue. - Mauco 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Later edit: Don't hide the fact that reduction in custom taxes was obtained while Vladimir Smirnov was boss of the PMR Custom office.--MariusM 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what I would call "irrelevant" information, especially since the link between the father's political activities and the son's alleged granting of customs preferences at the time is circumstantial, at best. Because your introduction of this is meant to insiniate something which is not documented or proven by any of the sources, this means that your edit is a violation of WP:NPOV. The Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation explains that while hinting or insinuating may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. It is on this basis that the inclusion of Vladimir Smirnov's name in this article is wholly inappropriate. - Mauco 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is documented through the link you gave that Vladimir Smirnov was boss of PMR custom office when Sheriff obtained favours (and the article consider that is a link between favours and political ties with PMR leadership - is not my insinuation, your complaints should be addressed at Russian newspaper Komersant). Why you want to hide rellevant facts (journalists consider them relevant, not only me)?--MariusM 02:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: In your current edit, the information from Kommersant is not included in the same historical context as Kommersant's article. This provides insinuation, which is POV. Moreover, you are omitting the important context of the political status of renewal: Namely that it, and Sheriff's own founder (as a Renewal MP) is in opposition to the Smirnov government. Why do you want to hide this well known and fully documented fact? - Mauco 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

On Wikipedia, it is considered vandalism to deliberately, knowingly removing relevant, documented facts from an article. In this DIFF[11], the following happened:

• One of the co-founders and owners is again listed as only an "employee", despite my earlier correction.
• Kommersant is again spelled wrong, despite my earlier correction.
• The following sentence was deleted from the article: "In recent years, however, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov and pursues a confrontational policy towards his government."

Would the editor who made this change please care to explain his actions? - Mauco 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It was already explained, but the DIFF you chosed include 2 consecutive of my edits, so - you let out the explanation. Check the explanation at my first edit (not the second, which was a spelling correction). Kazmaly was mentioned as co-founder once, not necesary twice. No clash occured between Sheriff and Smirnov-led government, we should not mislead our readers.--MariusM 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this DIFF[12]?!? It still doesn't make any sense. Kazmaly is mentioned first as a cofounder, then as an employee. He is not an employee. He is a co-founder, co-owner. Kommersant is spelled wrong,he even though I fixed that, too, earlier. And - the worst part - the Sheriff support of Renewal is removed, as is the confrontational policy that this party (with Kazmaly as MP) has pursued against the Smirnov government. This is not something which I say. Lots and lots of sources from all sides of the political spectrum document this amply, including, but not limited to, the following: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] See also: Renewal (Transnistria) for more. - Mauco 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is mentioned exactly what we have sources: 2 persons from Sheriffs are MPs for Renewal. That is the full story. I don't want anymore to feed the trolls.--MariusM 05:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the full story, then the statement "The company has close ties with the political power of Transnistria" must go since it does not give the whole story: That they have close ties to the OPPOSITION party is the important detail which you insist on hiding from the readers, and which changes the nasty insinuation of the current article version by 180 degrees. The statement about Vladimir Smirnov is also highly POV. Because your introduction of this is meant to insiniate something which is not documented or proven by any of the sources, this means that your edit is a violation of WP:NPOV. The Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation explains that while hinting or insinuating may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. Finally, your attempt to label me as a troll could be construed as a personal attack, or at the very least a lack of civility on your part. - Mauco 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Full story is that Sheriff has ties with both Renewal and Smirnov (see both BBC article and Komersant article for later ties). I asked you several days ago to show me an official denial of Smirnov about the ties of his family with Sheriff, something like Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman", and you were not albe.--MariusM 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Has or had? There is a difference. Politics change over time, and my version of the edit explains that. You can quote an old article (such as the one from BBC, where we are in contact with the author and have pointed out the errors), and you can certainly quote other old articles to support the old political alliance. Today, we can equally well quote new source which make clear - again and again - that this situation has changed. There are no ties to both. There is, however, a shift in alliance, as all the 2006 sources abundantly make clear. If you want to include ANY mention of politics in the article about Sheriff, this is the key point and can not be left out. Otherwise, you may of course deem their political ties irrevelant and leave out everything. This is your choice. The only choice you do not get is to tell just half of the story. - Mauco 14:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend BBC article has errors. BBC is a more reliable source than Mauco. I believe that there still are ties between Sheriff and Smirnov, a company can have ties with many political forces in the same time, as a woman can have ties with many men at the same time. I already explained this in my edit "Eastern European Politics explained for non-natives in the area", I understand that is a cultural gap between us - you have the handicap of being born in a democratic country, this is why you don't understand Eastern European politics. I did my best to bridge that gap.--MariusM 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You may not know it, but this particular BBC piece does have some serious errors. Both Bogdan and I have already written to the author about this and to fact check, and in this regard Edward Lucas also contacted me privately with some info that will help both Bogdan and myself clarify this (and Edward Lucas, too, contacted his colleague at the BBC about this).

We don't assume that if it's published by the BBC or printed in the New York Times (see Reuters fake but accurate photos from Lebanon) or the Wall Street Journal it must be gospel truth. We don't claim if you can't Google it, it must not exist or be fake. After all, I can't Google where MariusM went to college. Is he a Longhorn or a Buckeye? :) In this age of the blogosphere, people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. One of the good things about Wikipedia is that we are a "beehive" of editors who spend a lot of time working on very arcane subjects --such as the background ownership and political machinations of a company in an obscure place called Tiraspol. We put more knowledge and research hours into this than a commercially employed BBC journalist could ever hope to do. Do you get it now? It is the new age, buddy. - Mauco 23:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

MariusM has clearly violated the three revert rule. This is normally a blockable offence. However, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, there is no reason to block now. However, if this happens again, the user will be blocked.

It is also quite clear that Mauco has violated WP:3RR as well. I'm going to assume good faith, as long as this does not happen again.

You both need to be respectful to others and their points of view. I don't need to hear about a user "pushing a pro-Russian expansionism POV through Wikipedia". If Mauco has a statement that can be made, with a verifiable reference (such as a BBC link) that is added at the time of the edit, it should stay. Similarly, if Marius wants something added, it can stay, too, provided it is properly referenced. There was consensus on a list of Transnistria-related references here.

You both are fine editors, but you are both going to end up on the wrong side of a block if this behavior continues. Editors who have been blocked have a permanant stigma attached to their names: you can't erase a block from the record, and any editor who disagrees with you in the future is very likely to bring up the fact that you have a block on your record from previous edit warring, meaning your opinion on Wikipedia soon becomes worthless, as your reputation as a "previously blocked editor" will always give you a black mark. Think about this.

What statements can we compromise on? As it currently stands, this article is little more than a stub. For one of the largest companies in a disputed territory, this article is very, very short. Both opinions can be expressed in the same article, you know. Instead of reverting the other person's sourced addition, add your own sourced sentence. For example, "The BBC reports that... While Source B denies these claims." Firsfron of Ronchester 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Let us see if we can find some common ground here, and if you can maybe help us bridge the gap. I don't like some of MariusM's personal comments about me (and my alleged "handicap"), but I will ignore them in the interest of finding consensus. The disputed paragraph is as follows, which I will break down and comment on, one sentence at a time. -

1.: In the early years of the company, it supported the government of president Igor Smirnov.

No dispute here. It did. That is a fact. - Mauco 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree.--MariusM 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. We have agreement here. One down, three to go. - Mauco 01:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It will be better to take out "in the early years", as we don't know if situation changed. Just The company supported the government of president Igor Smirnov.--MariusM 03:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2.: According to an article in Kommersant, it received a reduction on taxes and import duties.

True. - Mauco 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's add "it received reduction on taxes and import duties to the customs service, run by Smirnov's son Vladimir". Not only Sheriff supported Smirnov, Smirnov family suported Sherif, this is the full story.--MariusM 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to According to an article in Kommersant, it received a reduction on taxes and import duties when the customs service was headed by Vladimir Smirnov, the president's son. It is the same thing, just better English. - Mauco 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Two down, two to go. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: When did Vladimir Smirnov lost his job as head of Transnistrian custom services? I am not aware that such thing happened.--MariusM 03:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2005. Check the customs website. I did. If you don´t have it, the link is listed here: http://www.pridnestrovie.net/links.html and besides, work towards getting consensus, don´t invent new points to dispute because then we will never finish. I have never in my life worked with an editor as pedantic as MariusM (he may take this as a compliment if he wants) and it borders on the disruptive, especially in an article which is about a company and not about the customs service. - Mauco 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did check the website of PMR State Customs [21]. They don't show the names of the persons who are leading this service. Show me a source for your claim that Smirnov son is not anymore boss of PMR State Custom, alse your opinion can not be included based on NO original research rule.--MariusM 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

3.: In recent years, however, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov and pursues a confrontational policy towards his government.

This is the part which MariusM wants to leave out. Several of the following sources, however, show that the currently existing link between Sheriff and Renewal:[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] There are no such sources which show a similar currently existing link between Sheriff and Smirnov. The above statement, as it stands, is fully sourced. How can delete something which is fully sourced? Answer: We can't. - Mauco 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All clashes are (if they are) between Renewal and Smirnov, not between Sheriff and Smirnov. Sources are not reliable ("Tiraspol Times" is not a reliable source even if you Mauco wrote for "Tiraspol Times" [30]) and remember: (i)Renewal didn't put a candidature against Smirnov for december 2006 election, what kind of oposition is this? (ii)Sherif is a private company not a political party, it can have good relations with Renewal and Smirnov in the same time - as I told in my edit "explanation about Eastern European politics for non-natives in the area"[31]--MariusM 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even discounting the first link, it seems to me Mauco's links at least provide the basis for such a claim. However, if you can provide a link showing the opposite, the sentence can be modified. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, MariusM, please don't be disruptive. Take out Tiraspol Times, if you want, but you can not ignore ALL the sources (Moldovan sources, no less) which say that Sheriff and Renewal are virtually the same thing. See, for instance, Moldpres, the official state owned news agency from Moldova (who is on your side of the dispute) in this article which analyzes the friction between Yevgeny Shevchuk (whom they see as the representative or "puppet" of Sheriff) on one hand, and Igor Smirnov on the other. The article even includes this sentence: ""the attack against the centre started by discrediting Sheriff’s potential candidate to the presidential seat"." Note that Moldpress does not say "Renewal's candidate" but use the word "Sheriff's candidate". Some of the other sources are in the same vein, but you do not comment on those. You only focus on Tiraspol Times. I specifically brought a wide sampling of sources, from all sides of the conflict and the political spectrum, to show that there is consensus among analysts on this particular fact. We need to let sentence #3 (above) stand as proposed, without further changes. - Mauco 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I pointed the fact that you wrote for "Tiraspol Times" to show your bias. Moldpress is not on "my side", as you know I am not a moldovan. From the begining (see this talk page) I told I don't trust Moldpress analysis. They wrote about "Sheriff's candidate" but there is no such candidate! In December will be presidential election, and Renewal, the bigest party (which won election in 2005) didn't put a candidate against Smirnov. Stupid journalists from Moldpres can dream about Shevchuk runing against Smirnov, but FACT is he didn't submit his candidature. Neither any other person from Renewal didn't submit his candidature. This is not oposition, is pre-approved oposition for stupid westerners eyes. I made also a point which neither Mauco or Firsfon of Rochester didn't adress: Sheriff is a private company, not a political party. Even if Renewal is a real oposition against Smirnov, is possible for a private company to have ties with both political parties. We have sources about the ties between Sherif and Renewal (the 2 MPs which are Sherif employees), but we have also sources about the ties between Sherif and Smirnov (BBC and Komersant article). Both those ties should be included in the article, and we should not make assumptions about "clashes" between Sherif and Smirnov even if there are real clashes between Renewal and Smirnov (which I still doubt until I don't see a presidential candidate of Renewal other than Smirnov). If a director of the company McDonalds decide to run for American Senate on behalf of Democratic Party, this does not mean we should write in Wikipedia article about McDonalds that the company McDonalds support Democratic Party and stronglly oppose George W. Bush.--MariusM 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A person may write for a newspaper and still edit Wikipedia without bias. Please assume good faith. Mauco has relented on some of the things he thought should or should not be in the article, something a true POV pusher probably wouldn't do. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people with biases who are editing Wikipedia, in fact bias and good faith are not incompatible. At some moments, I also was accused by Mauco as being biased. Mauco accepted compromise in those areas which were never part of the dispute. I see you didn't address any of my criticisms written above regarding sentence nr. 3.--MariusM 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I will address your criticism above regarding sentence no. 3:

First, do not single out Moldpres or Tiraspol Times. I have 8 sources which say the same thing. MariusM has not given one single source which states that Sheriff supports Smirnov over Renewal, or that Renewal is not an opposition party.

If a party chooses not to run a candidate in a particular election, this does not automatically in and of itself invalidate its status as an opposition party. History is rife with examples of this. In the case of Renewal, they are bidding their time. They do have a candidate, as we all well know, but he feels that the conditions are not right for throwing his hat into the ring. This is not because he is not part of the opposition (he is, and the sources support that) but for operative and strategic reasons. You may comment on those on the page of the party or the page of the candidate, Yevgeny Shevchuk, if you want to.

In response to "Stupid journalists from Moldpres can dream about Shevchuk runing against Smirnov, but FACT is he didn't submit his candidature" the fact is that, stupid or not, Moldpres is a reputable source.

In response to "This is not oposition, is pre-approved oposition for stupid westerners eyes" the fact is that this is MariusM own opinion, and as original research, it can not influence Wikipedia in any way. No sources exist that agree with MariusM on this point.

In response to ¨"Sheriff is a private company, not a political party" I have suggested to MariusM that we leave out the entire section, and do not mention the political ties of Sheriff at all. I will agree to that. However, if we DO mention them (and MariusM seems to want to) then it is imperative that we explain the full story: That they are closely tied to an opposition party, and that this party clashes with president Smirnov. This is what all of the available sources agree on. MariusM can call the sources "biased" (as in the case of the one from Transnistria) or "stupid" (as in the case of the one from Moldova) but there are also third party sources, from neither of these two countries, who say the same thing. And no matter what slur MariusM puts on the sources, this is what they say and we can not change it. This point ALONE makes a strong case for inclusion in the article of the full sentence no 3, unchanged.

In response to "Even if Renewal is a real oposition against Smirnov, is possible for a private company to have ties with both political parties." Yes, it is possible. But this is not the case. We have CURRENT sources about the ties between Sherif and Renewal (the 2 MPs which are Sherif employees) and we have sources about the PREVIOUS ties between Sherif and Smirnov (BBC and Komersant article). Both those ties should be included in the article, with listing one as in the past and one as the current case. The BBC is old, and must be seen in the context of the time it was written. Kommersant refers to the past ties. The other sources all specifically speak of opposition and confrontation ("clashes") between Sheriff and Smirnov.

We are not making assumptions about "clashes" between Sherif and Smirnov as these are documented. See the Moldpres article. They do not talk of a clash between Renewal and Smirnov, but between Sheriff and Smirnov, with Renewal being a pawn ("puppet") of Sheriff. If MariusM personally disagrees with this analysis from the stateowned news agency of Moldova (which is no friend of Transnistria, Smirnov, nor Sheriff), this still does change any inclusion criteria. We can source it and we must include it.
- Mauco 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would put to you that "opposition" party but only according to strict limits. The true opposition parties (i.e., pro-Moldovan declared enemies of the state) are still banned. Or do you have an updated for us? It's political discourse, but one where everyone is still speaking out of the same side of their mouth. — Pēters J. Vecrumba active talk 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You can "put it to me" if you provide sources. Please do. Meanwhile, let me say this: Obviously, a political party - any political party - caters to what the voters want. Do the voters in Transnistria want unification with Moldova? Hardly. If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please provide sources. These groups know that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting candidates elected, because of their miniscule following. This is why they do not participate in elections as political parties. But they are not banned, my friend. You have the party "Our Moldova" (Transnistrian branch), the tiny NGO Dignitas, and the very large (one of the largest in PMR) NGO World Window, Soros-funded and advocating unification. Not banned, and operating openly. But with very little appeal to the average voter. - Mauco 04:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A person may write for a newspaper and still edit Wikipedia without bias. Please assume good faith. Mauco has relented on some of the things he thought should or should not be in the article, something a true POV pusher probably wouldn't do. Firsfron

Firstfro, MariusM is misleading you. I do not write for Tiraspol Times. I wrote a single guest column, as an opinion article, which I was not paid for. It was published in their OpEd section. If you see http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/jobs.html you can see that Tiraspol Times specifically do not pay for that, and keeps it separate from their regular content and from their journalistic contributors. It is equivalent to someone who writes a letter to the editor and gets its published. He is not all of a sudden "a writer for..." or "a journalist" or anything of the sort. I have explained this to MariusM before, but he has a fixation and likes to portray me to third parties as a biased editor. Of course, my edit log is public record and I am quite proud of it, so in the long run, MariusM´s little smear campaign will fall of deaf ears. With regards to the article that he likes to mention so much, it was simply a public call for mutual respect and tolerance. Something which is sorely needed in Transnistria and which we could also use more of here on WP. -

Later edit:Yesterday, at 21:01 Firsfron of Ronchester gave both of us a warning about 3RR violation. At 23:25 Mauco violated again 3RR rule on this article, and one hour later at an other article [32], but he was pardoned by a Russian admin. I noticed that my comment in the 3RR report about the fact that Mauco wrote in "Tiraspol Times" was removed by Mauco as "personal attack" [33]. It surprised me, why he hide the fact that he is a contributor at this online newspaper instead of being proud of it? Those who will look at the 3RR report will believe that I used some nasty words against Mauco.--MariusM 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Which indeed you did. If they want to see what was deleted, they can check the history log. Now, with regards to writing for Tiraspol Times, you already know better than to bring it up here. You know that I got an invitation for a single one-off article on their OpEd page. I announced it to the Wikipedia community before I accepted. I wrote it without censorship of any kind. It is an article where I promoted the views of the current US secretary of state, Condi Rice, and a former one, Henry Kissinger. This does not make me a writer for http://www.tiraspoltimes.com any more than someone who has a Letter to the Editor published on the OpEd page of the New York Times can claim to be a New York Times journalist. Your comment on the rejected 3RR filing (which you failed to mention here, or in my Talk, at the time) was uncalled for. It was biased, misleading, and used unsourced statements and smear words like propaganda. It was a thinly veiled personal attack, in violation of WP:NPA and it was not proper to include in a 3RR report. As most admins should know, such cases are decided on the basis of the actual conduct: Was there or was there not an instance of 3RR? They are not decided on who can smear the other side the most, through use of innuendo, ad hominem attacks and falsehoods. If you want to bring my OpEd GUEST COLUMN up in this article's talk page, feel free to do so. It just reflects badly on you. I will especially urge everyone to read my unpaid guest contribution. It goes to the heart of the same sort of conflict which we are experiencing here, with one side automatically assuming bad faith. It can be seen here: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/285 - Mauco 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

4.: Partly thanks to the campaign support of Sheriff, this party now holds a parliamentary majority, with Ilya Kazmaly and the company's human resources director, Ilona Tyuryaeva, both being Renewal-deputies.

The first half of the sentence is supported by the same sources as the statement above. The parliamentary majority is a statement of fact. The position of the two Sheriff deputies to parliament and their names are supported by the official bios on the parliamentary website, http://www.vspmr.org/, which we also give as source. - Mauco 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that Renewal has a parliamentary majority, it was never a dispute. In fact, is one of my arguments against labeling Renewal as "oposition" party. Also, no dispute about the 2 persons from Sherif who are MPs. A dispute can be about how much must Renewal thanks to Sheriff.--MariusM 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Then can we agree to modify the sentence to: This party now holds a parliamentary majority, with Ilya Kazmaly and the company's human resources director, Ilona Tyuryaeva, both being Renewal-deputies. ? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I am concerned, and MariusM just confirmed the same. He only objects to the "partly thanks to..." part of the sentence, which I have already accepted to leave out. So: Done. Consensus on sentence #4 as well. - Mauco 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. The that only leaves #3. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment each of these four sentences in turn. Please comment on what, if anything, is disputed in either of these sentences, and please give suggestions for alternative phrasing of these sentences in order to resolve the dispute amicably. - Mauco 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Sentences #2 and #4 have supporting links. The other two do not. Without supporting links, and if these two sentences are truly disputed, they could be removed. Links (here) should be provided to back up these claims. If other sentences are disputed, bring them up here with appropriate citation. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have numbered the sentences so we can refer to them easier. I doubt that MariusM disputes #1. However, let me not put words in his mouth, so let us wait until he gets online and see what he says.

With regards to sentence #4, it can be broken down in three parts:

* Partly thanks to the campaign support of Sheriff,

* this party now holds a parliamentary majority,

* with Ilya Kazmaly and the company's human resources director, Ilona Tyuryaeva, both being Renewal-deputies.

If there is a dispute on the first (third) part of sentence #4, and we can not source, then we can just delete it. Even without the mentioning of "Partly thanks to the campaign support of Sheriff", this sentence is still readable, informative and makes sense. The two final parts are undisputable. Renewal holds as parliamentary majority (sources: [34],Politics of Transnistria and lots of others, on request. This is publicly available election data) and the two names, their titles and their status as MPs is also straightforward public knowledge. We got most of the information from the official parliamentary website, but other sources can of course be provided too, by me, if there is any dispute. - Mauco 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph Mauco want to delete is: The company has close ties with the political power of Transnistria, with two of its employees being members of parliament for Renewal, the party which have the majority in Transnistrian Supreme Soviet.Biography of MP Ilya Kazmaly, 2006,Biography of MP Ilona Tyuryaeva, 2006,BBC News: Misery in a pariah state, 2004. As shown in an article from Komersant, Sheriff supported the Smirnov regime any way it could and it received reduction on taxes and import duties to the customs service, run by Smirnov's son VladimirKommersant: The Old Guard Wins in Transdniestria.

He want to hide the fact that Vladimir Smirnov, Transnistrian president's son, is the boss of Transistrian custom who granted Sheriff with custom tax reduction. Instead, he want to create for readers the misleading belief that "Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed". Not true. All refferences are about clashes between Renewal and Smirnov, not about clashes between Sherif and Smirnov. Even the clashes between Renewal and Smirnov I believe are not real, just a propaganda of Transnistrian regime, supported by sources of Transnistrian regime, like "Tiraspol Times" an on-line newspaper where User:William Mauco himself is a contributor See end of article. Fact is that Renewal never asked Smirnov to be ousted and not even put a candidature against Smirnov for december 2006 election - this is why I believe Renewal is not really in oposition with Smirnov. Anyhow, is not relevant for this article Renewal political strategy, even if we admit that Renewal is in oposition with Smirnov, this is not relevant for an article about Sheriff. As I explained to Mauco, a private company can have ties with many political forces in the same time, like a woman can have ties with many men in the same time. Ties of Sheriff with Renewal don't exclude ties of Sheriff with Smirnov, both are sourced.--MariusM 00:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not want to hide the fact about Vladimir Smirnov. I feel it is POV and wholly irrelevant, but as you can see above, I have agreed to include it nevertheless. As for the rest, the clash between Smirnov and Sheriff is real. I have provided the sources. Let us now get some agreement on the four sentences, and hopefully - with the help of our informal mediator - move on... - Mauco 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. The comment about V. Smirnov stays. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We have agreement now on sentences #1, #2, and #4 (2 and 4 in modified form). The agreement on #3 should also be straightforward. Eight different sources have been presented for this sentence, and I can bring many more that say the same thing (if eight are not enough). - Mauco 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring deleted text

I have restored the three sentences you agreed upon. I have also restored the fourth sentence, as there are multiple citations to back this up. I did not include the controversial Tiraspol Times link, but not all of these citations can be wrong. If there is more that needs to be added or deleted, please discuss it here. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstfron, following your request to discuss additions and deletions here, let me point out that the disputed paragraph (now rewritten) is still part of the article. It is this section: "The company has close ties with the political power of Transnistria, with two of its employees being members of parliament for Renewal, the party which have the majority in Transnistrian Supreme Soviet. As shown in an article from Komersant, Sheriff supported the Smirnov regime any way it could and it received reduction on taxes and import duties to the customs service, run by Smirnov's son Vladimir."

This has been REPLACED with the paragraph immediately following it, so please delete the above. It is the half truth which I objected to in the first place, and for which there is no consensus. - Mauco 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't hurry, let me time to answer at Mauco's asertion. No consensus yet. I remind that it was not only me, but also an other user (EvilAlex) who reverted Mauco. The restored paragraph don't comply with "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" rule - Wikipedia was transformed in a platform for advocacy for secessionist regime in Transnistria.--MariusM 20:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If EvilAlex wishes to weigh in here, he may. however, he was invited to take part in this discussion and has not. If there are sourced items you would like added, please respond soon. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Firsfron, for helping to establish a semblance of consensus. If you are up for a similar challenge, we have the exact same problem on Talk:Renewal (Transnistria). However, MariusM might feel happier if you pick another admin to look at it and give a third opinion. That is not to say that your third opinion is not welcome. But at the same time it is important that MariusM knows that there is fair play, and that you were picked randomly. If you put a new admin on the case, please pick one completely from random, too. - Mauco 21:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Mauco. I appreciate that you are willing to demonstrate fair play. If we are to follow the pattern already established, MariusM should technically be the one to choose a neutral third party. What do you say, Marius? Can you find an admin willing to look at the problems on Renewal (Transnistria)?

I should remind that we DON'T HAVE a consensus yet. In the "My objections" section I stated my point of view in details. I consider that actual article contains fallacies, which should not have place in Wikipedia. If we will not stick at factual accuracy the prestige of Wikipedia will suffer. There is no WP:RS for a statement like "Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed". At the begining of dispute with Mauco I didn't knew which are the intentions of Renewal political party. Now, we know for sure that Renewal didn't put any candidate for December 2006 election against Smirnov. So, even if there were rumours in the press, like the article of Moldpress that Mauco quoted, telling that Shevchuk (Renewal leader, however not a Sheriff employee) will chalange Smirnov in presidential elections, such rumours proved wrong. Yes, it was an other article dreaming that Smirnov will tell "I got tired, I depart", but reality shows Smirnov is not tired, he submit his candidature for december 2006 elections, that mean he want to govern at least other 4 years. How can we consider reliable sources such articles which are denied by REALITY? How can we deny the obvious? Everywhere in the world there are journalists who makes stupid assumptions, a small reality-check is necesary. Not all sources qualify for WP:RS rules. I saw newspapers telling about Hitler still living in South America - should we include this in Wikipedia? In our particular case, as time passed, we know already that Renewal is not disputing Smirnov's position in future elections. Maybe Renewal will dispute Smirnov position after other 4 years - fine, we will include in Wikipedia at that time that Renewal is in opoosition with Smirnov. (which still don't necesarly mean Sheriff is in oposition with Smirnov). Firsfron, as you added back the disputed text, including the third sentence, please answer at "My objections" section why you believe this text is good.--MariusM 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please listen up, and please listen closely: I gave 8 sources, all or most conforming with WP:RS. But they are far from the only one. There is plenty more on this subject on the Renewal (Transnistria) Talk page. Every single week, more and more gets published that support this statement. Just today, a new article was issued by Moldpres (the official state owned news agency of the Moldovan government, no less) that supports what we have.

Today's Moldpres article even addresses MariusM's point head-on, which is: "why is Renewal not disputing the Smirnov presidency this time around." Moldpres explains why, and at the same time re-affirming that Renewal and its opposition candidate is the only serious rival to Smirnov. Of course, MariusM probably prefers his own interpretation from here till eternity, and he already called Moldpres "stupid"... - Mauco 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are probabily 100 sources to tell that Sadam Husein has weapon of mass destruction, but after REALITY showed that he hadn't it will be silly to include in Wikipedia such claims. Same with Renewal opposition against Smirnov - time has shown that this party is not disputing Smirnov's position. Elections will be in december this year, we already know the candidates, no Renewal member between them. Why call Renewal "oposition" if it has the majority in parliament and don't dispute the position of actual president? All those newspapers which wrote that Renewal is a chalenge against Smirnov should be now ashamed, even if some of them don't want to recognize they were wrong. BTW, Mauco didn't show the last Moldpress article. Firsfron, please go through "my objections" section and see each argument. And please remember that, even if is undeniable that 2 out of 23 Renewal MPs came from Sheriff company, other 21 don't, including the leader Shevchuk. Even if true (but is not), Renewal oposition is not automatically a Sherif oposition. This company has ties with both Sheriff and Smirnov, this is what our sources tell. And the dispute between Smirnov and Renewal is not as big as some want to make Wikipedia readers to believe.--MariusM 18:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Marius, please, please, please understand. Before I can add or modify any of the existing sentences, I would like to have a reliable source. I've read your lengthy comments, but (and this is soooo frustrating!) you don't give me links which refute what Mauco is saying. I believe I have asked several times for Reliable sources. You have stressed that you don't believe any of Mauco's eight links, and that they are all unreliable. But you don't give me an alternative. Your own opinions are not enough. I need citations. I know you are really intelligent; I know you want to make this article better; but right now, on this third sentence, the only sources are Mauco's.

Tell me, right now, very simply, how you would like this sentence to be written, and give me reliable sources. Please do not post a long message about your opinion or what Mauco has done that is wrong. One simple sentence, with a reliable citation. Write it right here. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Firsfron, sorry to anticipate MariusM comments. I will of course let him explain himself, but since I understand this issue intimately, I want to say that MariusM does actually indeed have sources. He has an old BBC article which references an unknown report (which no Transnistria editor has ever read, and which we still don't know exactly what it contains) that supposedly links Sheriff to Smirnov through ownership ties. At least 3 Wikipedia editors have already been in touch with the BBC, and they are aware that this is incorrect. In recent BBC articles, including several published this year, the claim has not been repeated. He also has a more recent Kommersant article which talks about collaboration (but not ownership ties) between company Sheriff and president Smirnov, and the overall administration of Transnistria. This, however, refers to the past. A while back, MariusM gave up trying to refute that Sheriff and the Renewal party are closely linked. His argument now is that "yes, Sheriff is linked to Renewal, but also to Smirnov." To my knowledge, he has no current sources to back up this claim, other than the two mentioned which both refer to something historical and do not purport to show that this is still true today, in 2006. Meanwhile, I offer my sampling of eight but can offer many more if needed. I know, however, that this will not impress MariusM. He is aware that there are many more than eight, and that new ones are published all the time, but he compares them to the hundreds of articles which claimed that Saddam had WMDs and which in the end turned out to be wrong. On this basis, I do not know why I even bother to dig up sources anymore, because that sort of refusal can of course be applied to EVERY SINGLE ONE of the sources which we use in all Wikipedia articles... - Mauco 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the way the article looks in the moment it was protected is O.K., the only thing Firsfron should do is to revert himself. Mauco made a misleading comment that "a while back, MariusM gave up trying to refute that Sheriff and the Renewal party are closely linked". I never denied the links between Renewal and Sherif, this talk page is a witness. In "my" variant of the article this link is included, my position was from the begining that Sheriff has links with both Renewal and Smirnov. I have 3 sources for this: BBC article, Russian newspaper Komersant article from 19 September 2006 and Romanian Center for Investigative Journalism article from 11 July 2006. While BBC article is from 2004, the other two sources are from this year. In 1st october, when I started polemic with Mauco in this talk page, I wrote that "Renewal is pre-approved opposition" (translation: is not a real opposition, is that kind of oposition staged to create the impresson that in Transnistria exist a true democracy). At that moment I was not 100% sure but now, after I saw that Renewal didn't put any candidate against Smirnov, I consider that time showed, once again, what a good political analyst I am :-) (is a pitty that I am the only one noticing this :-( ). Between BBC and Mauco I trust BBC. Who are the 3 Wikipedia editors who are aware that BBC was incorrect I don't know, I saw only Mauco claiming that, but even between BBC and 3 Wikipedia editors I would still choose BBC as reliable source (especially as it is confirmed by recent investigation in both Romanian and Russian press).--MariusM 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting your contribution with the words "In my opinion..." Thank you also for nothing that you are the only one who holds this view, not shared by anyone sources. Reverting back to a disputed version will only prolong the dispute. The dispute resolution process is about doing the opposite: About resolving the dispute. You may also want to provide sources. I am an avid Transnistria watcher, and I am not aware of any "recent investigation by both Romanian and Russian press" or what such an investigation (which I have not seen) supposedly confirms. - Mauco 13:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is difficult for me to assume good faith for you, as I just gave the links and you still ask me to provide sources.--MariusM 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Those sources do not buttress your claim, and the use of the "confirm" in this context is inappropriate. I was asking for sources that actually confirm something. Confirmation. - Mauco 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Link for the fact that Renewal didn't submit any candidature: Four persons run for head in Transnistria Smirnov, Bondarenko, Safonov and Tomaily are the candidates (the electoral commision stil should confirm those candidatures), none represent Renewal, the party with the majority in parliament. All newspapers which dreamed about Shevchuk runing against Smirnov were wrong, and we should not consider such articles as WP:RS reliable sources. Sheriff still has ties with Smirnov. Quote from Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika – Terra Incognita - article from 11 July 2006: "The symbols of president Smirnov and Sheriff, controlled by his family, are everywhere". This is not an old article, is from 2006! In this talk page I pointed already that Smirnov never denied the ties of his family with Sheriff. I don't consider a Smirnov denial as reliable, however in this particular case he didn't even bother to make any statement like famous Clinton's "I did not make sex with that woman". You want to deny something that Smirnov himself didn't deny? You are more catholique than the Pope!--MariusM 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please .... You're really asking for it if you want to to use the CRJI article as a source for anything. You are familiar enough with Renewal, Transnistria, and Sheriff to know that it is just a rehash of all the old myth and fear mongering fantasies about the place, mixed in with innuendo. I will be happy to discuss all of your other points, but there is really no way to seek any sort of common ground if you start by claiming CRJI's project as a reliable source. If you think Tiraspol Times is biased, then these guys are twice as bad, just in the opposite direction. You should know better, MariusM, and I personally think that you do. - Mauco 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is not a myth, BBC also wrote the same thing. Myth is what you want to include in the article - "Sheriff is in opposition with Smirnov". Latest developments - the fact that Shevchuk didn't submit his candidature, showed that all your sources were wrong (some, intentionally wrong, as those are the orders they received for propaganda). Even claiming that Shevchuk is a puppet of Sheriff is POV, is like claiming that G.W. Bush is a puppet of Halliburton.--MariusM 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Going in circles here. I strongly disagree with your take on this situation. You should take a look at Pepsi's proposal below, and you should also follow Firstfron's suggestion to provide, very simply, a suggestion of how you would like the final disputed sentence to be written, along with reliable sources (one simple sentence, with a reliable citation). That might actually get us somewhere. Just one friendly warning so you don't waste your time: If you use CRJI as a source, I will of course be forced to show you why you can't. - Mauco 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astroturfing sources

Mauco's statement: Firstfro, MariusM is misleading you. I do not write for Tiraspol Times. I wrote a single guest column, as an opinion article, which I was not paid for. It was published in their OpEd section. If you see http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/jobs.html you can see that Tiraspol Times specifically do not pay for that, and keeps it separate from their regular content and from their journalistic contributors. It is equivalent to someone who writes a letter to the editor and gets its published. He is not all of a sudden "a writer for..." or "a journalist" or anything of the sort. I have explained this to MariusM before, but he has a fixation and likes to portray me to third parties as a biased editor. Of course, my edit log is public record and I am quite proud of it, so in the long run, MariusM´s little smear campaign will fall of deaf ears. With regards to the article that he likes to mention so much, it was simply a public call for mutual respect and tolerance. Something which is sorely needed in Transnistria and which we could also use more of here on WP. -

If you wrote this article, why you removed refferences about this fact as "personal attack"? But I doubt that you wrote only one article in "Tiraspol Times". An other user, remarked that "Tiraspol Times" copied word-by-word articles written by you in Wikipedia [35]. As it was an obvious thing, you recognized it [36] but you deleted this discussion from your talk page. Only after this you "officialized" your colaboration with "Tiraspol Times". In the same time you have a long history of including in Wikipedia links to sites like tiraspoltimes.com, pridnestrovie.net, visitpmr.com which were proven to be astroturfing organised by Transnistrian government Talk page archived or article Transnistria. You also supported ICDISS [37] - an organisation which was proved in an article in well known "The Economist" as being part of PR campaign of Transnistrian government article in "The Economist" (it seems you are the only person in the world who claim being present at ICDISS conference). After that the article about ICDISS was removed from Wikipedia and redirect to astroturfing [38]. You claimed that you had discussions and agreement with Edward Lucas, the author of the article in "The Economist", but from his talk page it seems he also suspects you [39] (in fact, my doubts about you as not being an ordinary wikipedian but a part of astroturfing campaign of Transnistrian government came from Lucas article in "The Economist"). The good part of this is that Wikipedia became famous through articles about astroturfing in well known magazines, as "The Economist". I made all those comments only because you made personal attack on me pretending that I was misleading Firstfro.--MariusM 21:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I will come later with comments about the essence of our dispute on this particular article. One of main points is that I consider many of the sources that you used not independent sources but astroturfing organised by PMR government, as reliable source like "The Economist" is showing.--MariusM 21:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from User:Daniel Case from the dispute about deletion of ICDISS "Wikipedia must not allow itself to be a vehicle for any intelligence service's disinformation schemes." [40]--MariusM 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My objections

I reproduced Mauco statement regarding sentence 3 and I answer at all points

Mauco statement:I will address your criticism above regarding sentence no. 3:

First, do not single out Moldpres or Tiraspol Times. I have 8 sources which say the same thing. MariusM has not given one single source which states that Sheriff supports Smirnov over Renewal, or that Renewal is not an opposition party.

Is not a problem of Sheriff suporting Smirnov over Renewal, is a problem of Sherif suporting both Smirnov and Renewal. I gave sources, already included in the article (BBC and Komersant articles about Sheriff supporting Smirnov). And remember: we are not discussing about Renewal here, we are discussing about Sheriff. As I told, a woman can have ties with 2 men in the same time.--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If a party chooses not to run a candidate in a particular election, this does not automatically in and of itself invalidate its status as an opposition party. History is rife with examples of this. In the case of Renewal, they are bidding their time. They do have a candidate, as we all well know, but he feels that the conditions are not right for throwing his hat into the ring. This is not because he is not part of the opposition (he is, and the sources support that) but for operative and strategic reasons. You may comment on those on the page of the party or the page of the candidate, Yevgeny Shevchuk, if you want to.

Again, remember: we are not discussiong about Renewal in this article. However, is not normal for a party who won in 2005 both local and parlaimentary election (absolute majority in parliament) not to have a candidate for presidency in 2006, unless it support actual candidate. Renewal is not a small party with no chances (those kind of parties indeed often don't submit presidential candidatures even if they are in oposition). Your sources talk about Shevchuk preparing to run for presidency, but we see that Shevchuk didn't submit his candidature (and no other person from Renewal) Conclusion (based on FACTS, not on assumption): Your sources are not WP:RS.--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to "Stupid journalists from Moldpres can dream about Shevchuk runing against Smirnov, but FACT is he didn't submit his candidature" the fact is that, stupid or not, Moldpres is a reputable source.

Reputable or not, Shevchuk didn't submit his candidature. Why to quote an article that proved wrong?--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to "This is not oposition, is pre-approved oposition for stupid westerners eyes" the fact is that this is MariusM own opinion, and as original research, it can not influence Wikipedia in any way. No sources exist that agree with MariusM on this point.

I didn't ask to include in the article this statement, it was an argument for talk page.--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to ¨"Sheriff is a private company, not a political party" I have suggested to MariusM that we leave out the entire section, and do not mention the political ties of Sheriff at all. I will agree to that. However, if we DO mention them (and MariusM seems to want to) then it is imperative that we explain the full story: That they are closely tied to an opposition party, and that this party clashes with president Smirnov. This is what all of the available sources agree on. MariusM can call the sources "biased" (as in the case of the one from Transnistria) or "stupid" (as in the case of the one from Moldova) but there are also third party sources, from neither of these two countries, who say the same thing. And no matter what slur MariusM puts on the sources, this is what they say and we can not change it. This point ALONE makes a strong case for inclusion in the article of the full sentence no 3, unchanged.

Political ties are sourced, but not only with Renewal, also with Smirnov family (BBC and Komersant article). This is the FULL story: Renewal has ties with BOTH Renewal and Smirnov. Is not unusual for Eastern European politics. Business should go further in any circumstances. We have sources for both those ties, we should include in the article both. I never opose to include in the article ties with Renewal.--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to "Even if Renewal is a real oposition against Smirnov, is possible for a private company to have ties with both political parties." Yes, it is possible. But this is not the case. We have CURRENT sources about the ties between Sherif and Renewal (the 2 MPs which are Sherif employees) and we have sources about the PREVIOUS ties between Sherif and Smirnov (BBC and Komersant article). Both those ties should be included in the article, with listing one as in the past and one as the current case. The BBC is old, and must be seen in the context of the time it was written. Kommersant refers to the past ties. The other sources all specifically speak of opposition and confrontation ("clashes") between Sheriff and Smirnov.

The fact that previous ties between Sherif and Smirnov no longer exist is not sourced. Maybe is your original research, but this is not acceptable in Wikipedia.--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not making assumptions about "clashes" between Sherif and Smirnov as these are documented. See the Moldpres article. They do not talk of a clash between Renewal and Smirnov, but between Sheriff and Smirnov, with Renewal being a pawn ("puppet") of Sheriff. If MariusM personally disagrees with this analysis from the stateowned news agency of Moldova (which is no friend of Transnistria, Smirnov, nor Sheriff), this still does change any inclusion criteria. We can source it and we must include it. - Mauco 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Moldpress article is not a reliable source, as we know that main assumption (Shevchuk runing against Smirnov) is unproved. See WP:RS. And Renewal is a political party, do you pretend all the votes it received are from Sheriff employees? Yes, Sheriff is a big company for this small Transnistria, but not as big to allow a party to win election only with votes of its employees. Don't take metaphors in Moldpress article as truth.--MariusM 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I add at this section the begining of dialogue I had with Mauco about Smirnov's son (who supported Sheriff, as already agreed to include in the article), as I didn't received answer from Mauco:

Question: When did Vladimir Smirnov lost his job as head of Transnistrian custom services? I am not aware that such thing happened.--MariusM 03:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2005. Check the customs website. I did. If you don´t have it, the link is listed here: http://www.pridnestrovie.net/links.html and besides, work towards getting consensus, don´t invent new points to dispute because then we will never finish. I have never in my life worked with an editor as pedantic as MariusM (he may take this as a compliment if he wants) and it borders on the disruptive, especially in an article which is about a company and not about the customs service. - Mauco 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did check the website of PMR State Customs [41]. They don't show the names of the persons who are leading this service. Show me a source for your claim that Smirnov son is not anymore boss of PMR State Custom, alse your opinion can not be included based on NO original research rule.--MariusM 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So you just checked the not-updated, dormant English language part of their website? Please note: 99% of the Customs Services's information is in their Russian-language section. Check it out. Anyway, I am not going to hunt for more sources on this issue or defend an edit which, in my opinion, shouldn't even be part of the article. As I have stated already, I feel that the inclusion of Vladimir Smirnov's name is irrelevant and is only here in order to introduce bias into the article. The article is about Sheriff, not about the customs service or about Vladimir Smirnov, or when he stopped working in a particular job. We can just as easily let the sentence say "According to an article in Kommersant, it received a reduction on taxes and import duties in the past" and the meaning is absolutely, 100% the same. - Mauco 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I checked the English language part of their website as I don't speak Russian. You claimed that there are big "clashes" between Smirnov and Sheriff and the reality is just the oposite - there were advantages received by Sheriff from Smirnov. I hope you will not claim that there are big clashes between Smirnov Igor and his son Vladimir.--MariusM 10:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I sure hope not. At least Oleg (the other son) supports his dad's re-run for the presidency. I would assume Vladimir does the same, but I have no indication either for or against, so best not to speculate. How about we leave Vladimir's name out of the Sheriff article? The past concessions were granted by the Customs Service, and we don't know if Vladimir Smirnov was ever personally involved in approving them. Even if he was, they were given by Customs, and behalf of Customs, and did not have anything to do with Vladimir Smirnov personally or his own finances. Reduce the sentence to "According to an article in Kommersant, it received a reduction on taxes and import duties in the past" and no meaning is lost. It says absolutely the same as the current sentence, without the uncertain and indirectly biased corollary. - Mauco 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Our source is quoting Vladimir Smirnov and you agreed to include him. Now you want to let only the part of unproved "clashes" between Smirnov and Sheriff, and let out the undeniable facts? Political ties between Smirnov and Sheriff were important in receiving tax reductions. Remember - Transnistria is not a democratic state, is a state where economy is mixed with politics. You can not do real business in Transnistria if you don't support separatist regime.--MariusM 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, I never wanted to include Vladimir Smirnov. Right from the start, I pointed out the flaw in doing this. I merely relented to this silliness in order to reach consensus, only to find out that you, in contrast, are not eager to reach compromise on the major points and keep disputing the article, regardless. The clashes are clear, and proven. Even this week (Monday), Moldpres AGAIN commented on them. Several sources have already been provided, so please read them and please do not refer to them as "unproven" again. Thank you. - Mauco 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a nutty thing

I came here because I am trying to learn more about Transnistria. The article sounds decent, then I went to the Discussion page and now my head spins. It is a little crazy, you know that, all of you, right? You can not just pick the sources you like and then not pick the other ones that you don't like, and what is all this talk about Mauco working for an intelligence service (like a secret spy). Crazy. I have seen him in action on two other pages that I have worked on and I know that you two always fight, but really, I have never seen it be this bad, I think that maybe the best thing to do is that everyone takes a rest and leave the article the way it is, and leave it locked down for a while. Later on, when you all take a long cold shower, then get back onto t his discussion page and try to bring some more outsider and see what they think, but do that later. Now I am even more confused because of all these arguments and counter arguments, so take a break. - Pernambuco 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will go to take a shower. However, I suggest to Pernambuco to look at all the refferences I gave in the "astroturfing sources" section. I am not the only one who have doubts on this subject, as you know from Tansnistria talk page. In general, people born in communist countries (like me and some Baltic guys you know about whom I'm talking) have some other way of thinking than westerners. It's life experience.--MariusM 01:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not comment on the Astroturfing accusations, so as to not add more fuel to the fire. But I agree that it is time to take a break on this particular page. Obviously I am OK with the article as it is now, and if there are changes to be made, they should be small, in my opinion. Let us take the suggested shower and wait a week to see what others have to say. - Mauco 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... wow. I'm with Pernambuco on this one. Your arguments over such minor points are really quite absurd. I would personally be embarassed about such lengthy arguments over this stub of an article. Have you considered lengthening the article, and allowing for both sides to be clearly stated? The current version is.. chopped up and painful. Below is my random interjection for a compromise piece.. with the obvious exception of the section on the company itself. -- Pepsi2786 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this here page is becoming one of those lamish edit wars. Thanks for your input, Pepsi. Pernambuco only commented, but didn't offer a suggestion other than the shower idea. Thank you so much for taking the time to propose an alternate version. I would prefer to not comment on it before I hear what MariusM has to say. In my opinion, he has gotten into a habit lately of opposing whatever position I take. If I say it is bad, he will support it. If I say that it is good, he will oppose it. So I will let him shoot first, and after he is done, I am sure that you will find that I am normally an easy-going guy. I normally only get pigheaded when the facts are bent out of shape and a distorted picture of reality is presented. - Mauco 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My compromise piece 2.0

Everything below is based entirely off of the sources available, and references are in every sentence through inline citations for where I sourced the material. Hope it's of some use in ending this heated and pointless argument.

Sheriff (in Cyrillic: Шериф) is the second-largest company based in Transnistria. Formed in the early 1990's by Viktor Gushan and Ilya Kazmaly, former members of the special services, Sheriff has grown to include nearly all forms of profitable private business in this small nation, and has even become significantly involved in Transnistrian politics.^[1][2] Others contend that the company is truly run by Igor Smirnov, the president of the secessionist republic of Transnistria, being run mafia-style, and used as a front to launder money.^[3][4][5]

[edit] Company

Sheriff owns a chain of petrol stations, a chain of supermarkets, a TV channel, a publishing house, a construction company, a Mercedes-Benz dealer, an advertising agency, a spirits factory, two bread factories, a mobile phone network, the football club FC Sheriff Tiraspol and its newly built Sheriff Stadium at an estimated cost of $200 million, including a five-star hotel still under construction.

This section is ugly, and I'd recommend making it into more of a history of the company's growth to include all this, rather than an ugly list.

[edit] Political dealings

Transnistrian government policies have isolated the region from the rest of Moldova, allowing Sheriff to forge a monopoly there.^[2] This led to a time of cooperation between the government of Igor Smirnov and Sheriff.^[2] The company supported government policy and in return, the customs service, headed by the president's son, Vladimir Smirnov, gave Sheriff a reduction on taxes and import duties.^[2] He is also said to be a major silent partner among the leadership of the company. ^[6][5]

As time progressed, however, Transnistria's indeterminate status has slowed the growth of Sheriff.^[2][7] When a new party, Renewal, was formed in 2000 with the goal of independence from Moldova, Sheriff supported them.^[8][1][9][2] Renewal is also known for it's support of the interests of big business.^[10] Kazmaly, co-founder of Sheriff, and the company's Human Resources Director, Ilon Tyuryaeva, were both elected to parliament as members of Renewal.^[11] Oleg Smirnov, another son of the president and a member of parliament, is also among the leadership of the company.^[12]

Sheriff has used it's economic clout to sway elections, by virtue of their ownership of a mobile phone network and of TSV, a local television station.^[1] In the 2005 Parliamentary elections, Renewal gained an absolute majority in the parliament, holding 23 of 43 seats.^[7][9][10] This victory ousted long-time Speaker of Parliament Grigori Maracutsa, replacing him with Renewal leader Evgeny Shevchuk, who also has strong ties to Sheriff.^[9][7]

Fearing a loss of power, the government of Smirnov accused Shevchuk and Sheriff of plotting a coup d'etat in Transnistria.^[2] The accusation stated that Sheriff was plotting to reintegrate Transnistria with Moldova, in return for profitable business conditions for the company there.^[2] Sheriff has strongly denied these accusations, and maintains that they also desire independence from Moldova.^{[2] [10]} Following multiple attacks between the two parties, Smirnov received the support of the Russian government.^[2] Since then, Shevchuk has disappeared almost entirely from the media, and has not registered to be a candidate in the December 2006 presidential election.^{[2] [13]}

[edit] Notes and References

1. ^ ^{a b c} "Transnistria 2006: Is Regime Change Underway?" British Helsinki Human Rights Group. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k} Solovyev, V. & Zygar M. (2006-09-19). The Old Guard Wins in Transdniestria. Kommersant: Russia's Daily Online. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
3. ^ Cândea, Ştefan & Ozon, Sorin (2006-07-11). "Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika – Terra Incognita." CRJI.org. Retrieved 2006-11-13.
4. ^ Ash, Lucy (2004-04-01). "Misery in a Pariah State." BBC. Retrieved 2006-11-13.
5. ^ ^{a b} McCracken, Patti (2006-02-12). "A place the world chooses to forget: Moldova's breakaway region is a pawn in its fight with Russia." The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
6. ^ Jahn, George (2004-01-18). "Hotbed of Weapons Deals." The Washington Times. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
7. ^ ^{a b c} "Moldova's Future Uncertain." (PDF). International Crisis Group. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
8. ^ Protsyk, Oleh. "Moldova's Dilemmas in Democratizing and Reintergrating Transnistria." (PDF). International Policy Fellowships. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
9. ^ ^{a b c} "Renewal, Pridnestrovie's reformist opposition party." pridnestrovie.net. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
10. ^ ^{a b c} Botan, Igor (2006-01-17). "Democracy and governing in Moldova." E-Democracy. Retrieved 2006-11-16.
11. ^ vspmr.org
12. ^ "Sheriff - A Kolkhoz with a Private Beneficiary" (2006-07-19). Retrieved 2006-11-13.
13. ^ "Four Persons Run For Head of Transnistria". Retrieved 2006-11-13.

[edit] Comments on compromise piece

That's my... abbreviated version. I know nothing about Transnistria.. or I didn't before I read all this. I have no bias, and based the entire government section on the sources. Is it agreeable to either of you? -- Pepsi2786 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what MariusM feels about this. - Mauco 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made some small changes in the compromise piece, I wait for comments.--MariusM 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is clear you are either not reading the sources, or disagreeing simply to be a pain. I cited over half a dozen sources all pointing towards the same thing, which is simply not what you wrote. I am utterly disappointed in your inability to compromise at all. -- Pepsi2786 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We can not compromise on factual accuracy and leave falacies to be included in Wikipedia. Did you read my sources? For example source 3 - an article from 2006, shows that Sheriff is controlled by the family of president Smirnov. Source 8 - an article from 2006 - shows that Oleg Smirnov, son of president, is in the leadership of Sheriff. Why to focus only on the 2 Sheriff persons which are MPs from Renewal and not to mention Oleg Smirnov, who is also MP? Renewal is just the second political party which is supporting Smirnov - this claimed is sourced and confirmed also by the fact that Renewal leader Shevchuk, didn't submit his candidature against Smirnov (source 9). Is not unusual for a political leader to have more than one party to support him. For example, Romanian president Traian Băsescu was elected in 2004 with the support of 2 political parties (National-Liberal and Democratic). I would add at all those source the BBC article: "Organised crime experts in the UK suspect that Sheriff really belongs to the first family of the rogue republic, and claim the Smirnovs use it to launder money". Claiming that Sheriff is in oposition with Smirnov is part of a propaganda campaign of denial which want to include Wikipedia. Yes, there are articles that can be quoted as sources for this campaign, but look at the facts: Shevchuk didn't put his candidature against Smirnov. There are sources which deny holocaust in WW2, but those are not WP:RS. Same with Mauco's sources. Please comment sources 3, 8, 9 and BBC article - why you believe those are not correct?--MariusM 17:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, first, you and I tried ... and tried ... and tried, and then some. After that, we got an an outside admin in here, for informal mediation. I thought that this helped, in fact, we ended up with a single disputed sentence (sentence #3, see above) and he asked you for an alternate sentence, with sources. When that didn't come forward, Pepsi shows up and puts a lot of work into this. He is not POV. He, like Firstfron, are newcomers to this. They are neutral. He goes to the sources, he puts forward a whole new compromise version. I was willing to comment on it, but I wanted to you to go first. Instead of commenting, you change it completely. You even use a source which you know you can't use because it will be contested strongly as per WP:RS, and you were warned about the same thing on the Renewal party's talk page. In the end, where is this going? Instead of spinning this into something new, why don't you just restore Pepsi's version to his original proposal? Or, better yet, propose a single, simple alternate phrasing for sentence number 3, with sources, just like Firsfron asked? - Mauco 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I have no problem with including the alternate viewpoints mentioned in your sources. But you cannot simply cross out the half dozen sources that say otherwise. A simple, "Other sources claim that Sheriff is headed by Smirnov himself." Or something along those lines would do. My complaint is not that you disagree. My complaint is in your simply crossing out the other half dozen perfectly well sourced lines. This should not be an edit war of, I'm right, you're wrong. It isn't that simple. Simply mention that there is a disagreement in the sources, and no one really knows for sure what's going on. -- Pepsi2786 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In an addendum to my previous post, I have updated my compromise piece to include the viewpoints MariusM has put forth, while at the same time including the several sources I mentioned. Keep in mind that I cannot read the source MariusM brought that was in a language neither English nor Russian, so I took the sentence he used and rewrote it in better English, but could not check the source. If there is an unpleasant source mixed in here, such as the one mentioned by Mauco as being against WP:RS simply strike out any sentence that uses only this unreliable source. This is why I cited every sentence in the piece. Please, comment. -- Pepsi2786 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The short of the long is this: Any article which uses the crji.org source for anything will be hotly contested until the end, on the basis of WP:RS and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. MariusM is aware of the situation in Transnistria, so he knows why this source is unfit. Now, he can do two things: He can be mature about this, and work constructively, or he can start defending his source and contesting my reply. If he does the latter, we will have to move this further up during the dispute resolution process and it will end in the same: His source will not be deemed acceptable. I simply suggest that we save ourselves a lot of time and act like grownups. - Mauco 12:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that you contest all sources that you don't like, but your opinions are not same as Wikipedia rules. I also don't trust sources like tiraspoltimes.com, pridnestrovie.net and, after the discussion about British Helsinki Human Rights Group in the talk page of article "Transnistria" it seems that this source is also a non-reliable one. If we want to reach a compromise, we should quote both kind of sources, but also we should mention the fact that Shevchuk, the leader of Renewal, didn't put his candidature against Smirnov. Pepsi made a mistake claiming that Oleg Smirnov is an MP for Renewal. This is not true, the source is telling (my translation, I keep only relevant things to make shorter - from the part "Sheriff - un kolhoz cu beneficiar privat" Sheriff, a kolkhoze with a private beneficiarry): "The company Sheriff shows the way the rulling family managed to create a structure which is parallel with the state, which control the local economy and produce earnings for private persons using official power (...) The company was founded in 1993 and is ruled by two MGB officers: Victor Gusan and Ilie Cazmali. Those coordonated in 1992 the arrest of Ilaşcu group [see Wiki article about Ilaşcu for details - my note] and were trustmen of president Smirnov during the war. (...) The younger member of the family, Oleg Smirnov, new ellected MP and high functionarry of custom office, is one of Gusan's assistants". Oleg Smirnov is MP, is in the leadership of Sheriff (assistant of founder Gusan) but is not member of Renewal!. This article in from 2006, is a recent article, but the links between Sheriff and Smirnov family were confirmed previously by other sources, including BBC. As can be seen in this talk page, I was curious to know if Smirnov ever deny those links, Mauco pretended yes, it was an article in german press, but was not able to prove it, he didn't gave any refferences. Mauco want to deny something that Smirnov himself never mind to deny! The reality is: there are undeniable proofs of links between Sheriff and Smirnov, there are also undeniable proofs of links between Sheriff and Renewall, there were some rumours about clashes between Smirnov and Renewal (Mauco gave some sources), however is undeniable that Renewal's leader Shevchuk didn't submit his candidature for december 2006 presidential elections against Smirnov, this is why I consider all those rumours unfounded (like rumours about Irak's weapon of mass destruction, for which of course we can find sources). Anyhow, relations between Renewal and Smirnov are not relevant as we are in the article about Sheriff, a company which want good relation with anybody in the political spectrum. Newspaper comments regarding that Renewal leader, Shevchuk, is a "puppet" of Sheriff are groundless. AFAIK, Shevchuk was never a Sheriff employee, contrary with Oleg Smirnov.--MariusM 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Deep sigh. I welcome ANY AND ALL sources that are real, be they pro- or con- or in between. All I ask is that we adhere to Wikipedia rules, in this case including (but not limited to) WP:RS. I can see from your reply that you want to hang your hat on the utterly faulty crji.org source. This is of course totally unacceptable. As for the rest of your argument, we can debate it and I will gladly answer you point by point to show how you are not just wrong but misleadingly wrong. First, however, we need to establish a simple respectful ground rule: you can not seriously want to use that web page as a source. Come on, MariusM, you know better than that. You know about Transnistria. You can read English. The whole crji.org source is sloppy and useless, not just for Sheriff but for other Transnistria related articles as well. - Mauco 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, so CRJI is a bad source. I've struck out it's citation. The only sentence it was referenced for remains covered by the BBC. It made no difference. I corrected my mistake on the subject of Oleg Smirnov (I mentioned I don't know that language). Let's not argue, please, and continue to attempt to resolve this dispute constructively. On the subject of Smirnov's links to Sheriff.. every source I've seen on it, even the one we have now struck out, do not say that it is openly run by Smirnov. They say he is using it as a front, very mafia-like. I haven't seen anything saying he denies it either.. but he does not admit it, from what I've seen. I don't see this being worth argument. There are sources which state he is secretly behind the company. We can leave it at that and present both sides. If you would like to present information about further links between the founders of Sheriff and Smirnov, by all means, throw a sentence or two in (with sources, of course) mentioning such. It is not necessary to remove anything else to do this. Please, comment on the compromise piece, and let's get a good article here. -- Pepsi2786 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, I now defer to MariusM to go first with his comments. I am the easy one here. So I will now let him comment, and if he is more or less good with what Pepsi has constructed now, then I will chip in as well. - Mauco 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources that proves links between Smirnov's family and Sheriff

1. BBC article 1st April 2004 : "Organised crime experts in the UK suspect that Sheriff really belongs to the first family of the rogue republic, and claim the Smirnovs use it to launder money."
2. Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika – Terra Incognita 1 July 2006 : “The symbols of president Smirnov and Sheriff, controlled by his family, are everywhere” (...) “The Sheriff Company controls almost everything has any relevance at all in the business environment. The company is controlled by the family of President Smirnov”
3. “There is no Europe here” by Patti McCracken 1 February 2006 : “This renegade republic is runned mafia-style by president Igor Smirnov and his son Vladimir, who controls a consortium called Sheriff”
4. E-democracy comentary 17 January 2006 : "Three more or less consolidated groupings are represented in the Supreme Soviet of the self-proclaimed Transnistrian republic after elections. They are: 1) the Obnovlenye (Renovation) movement that represents the interests of big business in Transnistria. The official leader of the movement, Mihail Burla, claims that this movement holds 23 out of 43 seats, it means the absolute majority; 2) the "Respublica" movement inspired by separatist leader Igor Smirnov that represents the interests of the "old guard" of "founding parents" of the separatist regime; 3) informal grouping of local security bodies supported by similar circles from Russia, which look for own niche in the local business, in relations with chauvinistic and revengeful circles from the Russian Federation, and "People's Volition" party, headed by deputy chairman of the State Duma Sergey Baburin. (...) The fact that interests of the "Smirnov clan" are represented in all three movements, including the victorious movement Obnovlenye is a proof in this regard. The famous firm "Sheriff" has among its leaders one of Smirnov's son, who has recently became lawmaker, supports the latter. Of course, no serious clan "keeps its eggs in one basket," and this thing also defines the Transnistrian pluralism that the so-called democratic elections in the region were based on. One can say the three heads of the same "separatist dragon" form the political pluralism in Transdniestria."
5. San Francisco Chronicle 12 February 2006 : “This renegade republic is run mafia-style by President Igor Smirnov and his son, Vladimir, who controls a consortium called Sheriff”
6. Washington Times 19 July 2004 : “Vladimir Smirnov, son of the Transnistria leader, leads the breakaway region's customs service. He is said to be the major silent partner in Sheriff”
7. U.S. Institute of Peace 22 July 2004 : “Sheriff Company, run by the “President” of Transnistria, Igor Smirnov, and his son Vladimir”
8. European Tribune 25 June 2005 : “It [Transnistria] is a harshly government "country", run by a man named Igor Smirnof, who uses a company called "Sheriff" to create a mafia monopoly on all the important aspects of industry (...) The TDR is a run by the Russian-backed Sheriff mafia/company, and it has no ethics or moral hang-ups”
9. Sheriff - un kolhoz cu beneficiar privat (Romanian) 19 July 2006 : "The company Sheriff shows the way the rulling family managed to create a structure which is parallel with the state, which control the local economy and produce earnings for private persons using official power (...) The company was founded in 1993 and is ruled by two MGB officers: Victor Gusan and Ilie Cazmali. Those coordonated in 1992 the arrest of Ilaşcu group [see Wiki article about Ilaşcu for details - my note] and were trustmen of president Smirnov during the war. (...) The younger member of the family, Oleg Smirnov, new ellected MP and high functionarry of custom office, is one of Gusan's assistants" (my translation)
10. Civic Media report 18 September 2006 : "One of Smirnov’s sons is head of custom office. The second is the owner of the company Sheriff" (my translation from Romanian)
11. Ziarul de garda Chisinau 24 November 2005 : "The son, Vladimir (Smirnov), controls through the holding “Sheriff” an important part of the economy" (my translation from Romanian)

From all those sources I like most the commentary of e-democracy: "interests of the "Smirnov clan" are represented in all three movements, including the victorious movement Obnovlenye is a proof in this regard. The famous firm "Sheriff" has among its leaders one of Smirnov's son, who has recently became lawmaker, supports the latter. Of course, no serious clan "keeps its eggs in one basket," and this thing also defines the Transnistrian pluralism that the so-called democratic elections in the region were based on. One can say the three heads of the same "separatist dragon" form the political pluralism in Transdniestria."--MariusM 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all these sources. I have struck out one which was a duplicate of another you mentioned, as well as the CRJI source which Mauco deems to be a bad source. The San Francisco Chronicle and Washington Post articles seemed to be the best to me, as they seem the most reliable. And they also say exactly what I'm trying to get across in the article. Smirnov is involved in the company, but silently. Like a mafia boss. All of these articles, as far as I can tell, show that Smirnov's involvement in Sheriff is not admitted. I have slightly editted my compromise piece using a few of these sources. -- Pepsi2786 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hanging in there, Pepsi. I have several comments on these sources, and in fact have been in direct contact with two editors so far (BBC and one of the others) so I know what they base their research on. Again, I now defer to MariusM to go first with his comments on your latest compromise piece. I am the easy one here. So I will now let him comment, and if he is more or less good with what Pepsi has constructed now, then I will chip in as well afterwards. - Mauco 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As a general comment: The compromise piece talk to much about Renewal. This is not the article about Renewal but about Sheriff. We should mention that Sheriff has links with Renewal and also links with Smirnov family, but we should not analyse Renewal position in the political spectrum, is not the proper place here.--MariusM 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so I'm done. I firmly and completely give up on you compromising on anything. You never put forth an attempt at a compromise piece at all, other than to strike out the whole article and put back exactly what you want. This is pointless. -- Pepsi2786 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And so, another one hits the dust... :-(

Honestly, I don't know what games MariusM is playing or if he gets some kind of sadistic pleasure out of this. Or maybe he just sincerely thinks that he is right (although he has never visited Transnistria, and admits to not being able to read or understand the main language of the area). The true believers who won't admit to being wrong are often the worst kind.

I have been going in circles with him over this, and the other admin, Firstfron, gave up too (it looks like). Now you, Pepsi. Well, we always have the next step is WP:DR... I knew what I was doing when I asked him to comment first, of course. - Mauco 02:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That troublesome third sentence

Alright, folks. I'm aware Pepsi is making a valiant effort to rework the article, and if the results are agreeable to both parties, so be it. However, I have looked at Marius' links, which he provided on my talk page, and have read the material, and would like to propose a simple change to the third sentence.

Some of the links are outdated, and some don't appear particularly reliable. However, I cannot disregard all of these links.

Might I suggest a compromise along the lines of:

In recent years, however, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov and pursues a confrontational policy towards his government.[42]Moldova.org Other sources dispute there was ever a serious dispute between Sheriff and Smirnov, and that there are still strong ties between Smirnov and Sheriff. [refs]

It does seem as though there are lingering doubts amongst some about the "clash", and in the interest of a NPOV article, it would be advisable to include commentary on both positions without giving undue weight. Comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you back Firsfron, I thought that you, too, had given up since we hadn't seen you around for a while. I will let the other editor go first with his comments on your latest article, and then I will add mine. So: What say you, Marius Mioc...? - Mauco 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, Mauco. I was very afraid you would strongly object to the above, so it's a bit of a relief that you haven't (yet). I do wonder what Marius thinks, and I hope something along these lines will pass muster. I guess I'm not giving up. I really would like to iron out a compromise. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We should add: Oleg Smirnov, president's son, recently elected MP, is in the leadership of Sheriff, being the assistant of founder Gushan. As we mention the 2 MPs from Sheriff which are members of Renewal we should mention the 3rd MP from Sheriff which is not member of Renewal, to have the full picture: Sheriff have ties with all important political forces in Transnistria (they don't keep all eggs in the same basket, as one commentary told). Also, I would like not to mention pridnestrovie.net, a propaganda site of Transnistrian regime and not a real source of information. For the links between Sheriff and Renewal, which I never denied, we have other sources of informations. Mauco, Marius Mioc is a person from Romania who write articles about politics but why you believe is me? Regarding your comments in previous section about my "sadistic pleasure" I refrain making any comment--MariusM 10:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We shouldn't add that Oleg Smirnov is Gushan's assistant. Has Oleg Smirnov said that? No. Has Gushan said that? No. Is there ANYWHERE on record where we know this to be true? No. Let me put the record straight: It is one of those malicious rumors cooked up in a political spin-tank somewhere, in order to draw some dots (like Osama and Saddam and their WMDs) which aren't there.

Now, for those who do not know the facts in Transnistria: Oleg Smirnov is head of Gazprombank and one of the founders of the PPP, Patriotic Party of Pridnestrovie. His bank - Gazprombank - is the MAIN COMPETITOR to Agroprombank, which is owned by Sheriff. They are in direct competition for clients. Likewise, in politics, PPP is in direct competition with Renewal for votes. Gushan belongs to Renewal, and supports Shevchuk. Smirnov is with PPP, which supports his dad.

They are fierce political competitors. They are also commercial rivals, in the bank business. Gazprombank is owned by Russian capital. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that they would allow their CEO to be the personal assistant to the #1 competitor. I don't want you to take this as a personal comment, please, but this is getting sillier every day and I just need to know what kind of fantasy world we are living in if we take these "sources" seriously? Use common sense to sort between reliable sources and those who clearly aren't... - Mauco 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is only the propagandistic picture of Transnistria you want to show to Wikipedia readers, in order to mislead them. I gave 11 (eleven) sources to show the strong links between Smirnov and Sheriff and you still claim there are "clashes" between them. Between those links - BBC, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle. Most of those links are articles from 2006. Against those sources, you came only with Russian sources or sources controlled by Transnistrian authorities, which of course want to clean the image of the boss. All important business in Transnistria can survived only with acceptance of Smirnov familly, this is a fact confirmed through many sources.--MariusM 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

From this edit of Mauco I understood he is denying only Vladimir Smirnov's ownership of Sheriff in 2006, he is not denying Oleg Smirnov employment at Sheriff as assistant of founder Gushan and also he is not denying previus ownership of Sheriff by Vladimir Smirnov. This is why, in order to achieve a compromise (I don't have the "sadistic pleasure" that Mauco suspects me) I didn't insist to mention Vladimir Smirnov, I focused only at Oleg Smirnov. Now I see that Mauco want to deny even Oleg Smirnov links with Sheriff. Indeed Oleg is a founder of Patriotic Party of Pridnestrovie, but I told from the begining that Sheriff is not keeping all eggs in the same basket - it has links with all important political movements in Transnistria and definitelly is not in oposition with Smirnov. Denying the obvious, this is Mauco's position.--MariusM 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have considered for a long time whether or not it is even worthwhile to respond to the above rant.

But I will do so, short and to the point:

For the record, yes, I am denying both the claims of employment and ownership by Oleg and Vladimir in Sheriff. And, so I am not alone in this: I doubt that any serious Transnistria-watcher or analyst exists who does not agree with me on this point.

Smirnov is from the Patriotic Party of Pridnestrovie. Gushan is from Renewal. They are both members of parliament, and they are rivals in the political field. They compete for votes.

Smirnov is CEO of Gazprombank in Transnistria. Gushan owns Agroprombank. They are rivals and competitors.

To say that Smirnov is the assistant of Gushan is ludicrous. Let's get real here. - Mauco 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary, all serious Transnistria-watchers or analysts knows the links between Smirnov familly and Sheriff. Those links are proved by reliable sources like BBC, San Francisco Chronicles, Washington Times. Those are more reliable sources than Mauco or his propaganda sites of Transnistrian regime, like pridnestrovie.net, tiraspoltimes.com, visitpmr, BHHRG or Russian newspapers with pro-Russian expansionism agenda.--MariusM 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just to be clear, are we adding or not adding In recent years, however, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov and pursues a confrontational policy towards his government.[42]Moldova.org Other sources dispute there was ever a serious dispute between Sheriff and Smirnov, and that there are still strong ties between Smirnov and Sheriff. [refs]  ? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, first sentence of this paragraph is already in the article and I think is misleading the readers. Until we reach consensus we should take it out. For a compromise I propose the following: According [refs], in recent years, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov.[42]Moldova.org Other sources dispute there was ever a serious dispute between Sheriff and Smirnov, and that there are still strong ties between Smirnov and Sheriff. According [ref] Oleg Smirnov, president's son and recently elected MP, is in the leadership of Sheriff, being the assistant of founder Gushan.[refs]--MariusM 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You may take the sentence out, since the page is no longer protected. Mauco may object to the last sentence, but the other parts seem reasonable. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The key to what is going on internally in Transnistria right now is the power struggle between different groups, each with political representation and with economic interests behind it. Sheriff is a part of that, but the current version of the article has been chopped and misedited to a degree where it is not clear to the average reader of the article now. - Mauco 14:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When you two are unblocked

When you two are unblocked, do we want to discuss this article rationally? I'm disapointed this has happened; I was hoping when the page was unprotected that we could come with some sort of concord, but it seems my efforts have been entirely futile. And now you will both have "black marks" on your records, which is really unfortunate. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)