Talk:Sheriff (company)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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. -

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)

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

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

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:[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 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)

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)

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)