Talk:Viktor Prokopenya

arrest of Prokopenya

• I have a lot of comments on the latest version.

1. On March — There has been information that it was April. So we need to say we don't know when exactly - we can say 2015 only.
2. Komok business partner - no evidence. Komok is an employee. Viaden Media was owned 100% by Viktor Prokopenya at 2006-2008, so…no partners.
3. arresed - not true
4. charged - not true (charge is brought under court decision. Prokopenya has never been charges, as his case has not been heard at court.)
5. belarussian state security service - not true ( security services usually in the plural to show cross service operations, so this would be better written “Belarusian state security services”. If kept in the singular, it requires a definite article – the – as it is referring to one particular service, rather than a general idea, and almost all singular countable nouns require an article)
6. state prosecution brought charges - not true
7. compensated - not true
8. ten month in detention - not true
9. presidential decree - not true
10. business partner Komok sentensed - irrelevant
11. Whitewash - not true. --ELindas (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

~ Well, well, well. It seems from your edits that you are either an employee of Viktor Prokopenya or contracted by him person. Your published here in a single edit an article with self-sourced sources on Prokopenya. Your sources include personal blog of Prokopenya which cannot be used as a source. For example, your whole sections of Prokopenya education and Prokopenya business sourced to his personal blog and sources are in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources.

• • And it seems that there are no reliable third sources in support of your hilarious claims that everything is not right in Arrest section. Deutsche Welle and Vice.com are reliable third country media which were reporting on issues ranging from ISIS to internet Barbies.
    1. Arrested - true - the source is given - reliable Deutsche Welle and vice.com which say "arrested". Period.
    2. Charged - true - the source is given - reliable Deutsche Welle and vice.com which say "charged". You seem to trade here and confuse between charges by police and vindication by the court. Could you provide details about your legal education?
    3. Belarusian state security services = KGB. If you would make an article in Wikipedia about Belarusian KGB and link Belarusian state security service articles to such article - you are welcome. But why you would delete reliable and sourced content from Wikipedia?
    4. compensated - absolutely true - sources are given which are reliable.
    5. whitewashing - true, sources are given.
  • Please also be notified that deletion of sourced and reliable information from the articles in Wikipedia may be considered as vandalism, and you may be banned from editing in Wikipedia if you would delete such information.

• Okay, I got a reply which means there is a dialogue. Let's go step by step and solve all the problems one by one. Firstly, I know Prokopenya from my previous work, though it would be wrong to call me his current employee or contractor. Secondly, since I am the main author of the article, it is important for me. And the new section seems to me exaggerated and not exactly accurate. Thirdly, I agree that the work on the article shouldn’t involve hectic movements. And it will be correct to focus on the meaning of each phrase and find the exact wording for it. So let's start. First, let's deal with the question about the templates at the beginning of the page. As to "primary" sources. In the correction that you cancelled I changed the links to Prokopenya’s website to another material. There is information about his education. Are there any other links that trouble you? I will try to replace them. And what do you mean by “written like a résumé”? --ELindas (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Elindas inserting fake info into the article

Obviously, Elindas is intending to whitewash well-sourced information supported by reliable independent sources.

1. Approaching media by lawyers of Prokopenya never caused discussion of right to be forgotten, as this right does not exist in Belarusian law. This fake is not supported in any article cited.

2. Elindas deletes any info on arrest and release on bail from Volodarka.

3. Why on Earth arrest and detention are named critics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Top taxpayer

Viktor Prokopenya became the top taxpayer of Belarus(not of Minsk) 可愛い (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source says clearly - "taxpayer of Minsk". Please carefully study sources before doing anything in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update

• Project Information has been updated. Errors in the text have been corrected. 可愛い (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• The article was updatedaccording to recent facts. The article was made more consistent with the Russian language version, as the majority of sources are in Russian. Information that was written in a tabloid style was deleted, as well as redundant information, not corresponding to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE. Changes were made to contribute to the neutral style of the article. Grammar changes. 可愛い (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to purchase bank

Had to delete excessive information, as added information is redundant, this includes excessive facts and commentaries, related to the deal, as well as to other bids to purchase Sberbank Ukraine. 可愛い (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

• Had to delete this section due to the following reasons:

1. Re. education dispute. Prokopenya's education was questioned by one person in a Facebook post. The facebook discussion was then published on probusiness.by. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in the articles devoted to them. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions on what is the best educational program. 2. Re. conflict with S. Chaly. According to WP:BLPCOI: Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. 3. Re. Instagram followers and comments that “brains are new tits”. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid outlet. 4. Re. commentaries re. restaurant. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. 可愛い (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

All these scandals in which Prokopenya was involved received wide coverage not only in Probusiness (Tut.by), but also at Kyky.org and dev.by publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Critics

• Changed title, as sections titles need to be neutral. According to the rule WP:BLPCRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. According to Wiki rules, participants should be careful when adding information about contemporaries, be sensitive and strictly follow US laws. We can not use word “arrest” or “arrested” in situations when there has been no court decision. This can be applied only to guilty people. See extensive commentaries on the situation by Belarus lawyers.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Deleted redundant information and opinions, some not relevant to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid outlet. The deletion of information raised discussion re. the right to be forgotten, due to the fact Prokopenya has EU citizenship. Viktor Prokopenya is a citizen of Belarus and pays taxes in Belarus. 可愛い (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

BLPCRIME applies to people who are not public. Prokopenya is definitely a "public figure". If the newspapers say that a person was arrested, so can Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia server is on American soil. "Right to be forgotten" is not an American law and doesn't apply to this Wikipedia.

If you want to change whitewash this article, I would suggest a wp:RfC or an wp:edit request. Jim1138 talk 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

• Editors, let's find a consensus in editing. User talk:Jim1138-m have canceled all edits. The text has many grammatical errors and a lot of incorrect information. Can you explain why you canceled all the edits to the article? 可愛い (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 可愛い, I can't help but wonder whether you have a conflict of interest here. At the very least, your arguments don't make a lot of sense. You can fight about whether he has two sons or one, and I don't care personally, but you cannot just whitewash an article. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 可愛い If you want to make grammatical corrections or sourced changes to that are not whitewashing, please do. Jim1138 talk 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi, Jim113 after reviewing all my previous proposed edits I have come up with new edits and more detailed explanations to them.

1. Corrected grammar and lexical mistakes in the article.

2. Added information on new investments and personal life. All of which are supported by reliable sources and written from NPOV.

3. Changed the section name from “Attempts to purchase bank” to “Attempt to purchase bank” as there was only one attempt by Prokopenya’s VP Capital to acquire two banks. Removed incorrect details such as the false information that Grigory Guselnikov is a business partner of Viktor Prokopenya (see here - https://naviny.by/article/20170803/1501773402-prokopenya-peredumal-pokupat-ukrainskiy-sberbank). The deleted commentary bears no relevance to the attempted acquisition of the banks.

4. Changed the name of section from “Criticism and controversies” to “Critics and controversies”.

5. Organised information to “Critics and controversies” section, corrected the inconsistencies added more controversies. More details below:

а) Deleted discussion regarding education. Prokopenya's attitude to education was questioned by one person in a Facebook post. He is a guy who positions himself as an expert in EU and US education and has blog about it, but has only 137 followers in Facebook. Looks like his main goal to start this discussion was to increase the popularity of his blog. Apparently this FB discussion which he started was published word by word by a small business media - probusiness.by. You can google translate it and read - it is literally duplication of the facebook discussion. Focused more on educational institutions rather than Prokopenya. Which does not make it a reliable source to be included in Wiki. If you still think that, we need to include it. Let’s discuss, but I have huge concerns it is compliant to the rules, as in this case, we need to pull here all the FB discussion, which resulted in some media attention to it.

b) Edits regarding dispute regarding the IT and cryptocurrencies. Added more details to the story. Added more critics by other experts. Added the fact on public debates arrangement and S. Chaly subsequent refusal.

c) Moved information re. Prokopenya’s Instagram to “Honours and Awards”. Deleted commentary re. tits. Wiki is not the place to write about ‘tits’. Hope you will not blame me of whitewashing as the result.

d) Piece re. restaurant. I think this should be deleted, as I have done so previously. This information is non sence. It is neither critics of restaurant nor critics of Prokopenya. I did not delete it so far, but I want to ask your opinion about that. Do you think this information is relevant? Similarly, with the case of the education debate, I struggle to see the relevance. Should every facebook conversion of a person be included in wikipedia? Here is what we have in wikipedia now:

In June, 2018, Viktor Prokopenya commented the opening of the restaurant nearby Kurapaty. According to him, the restaurant should be closed, even not by the state, but by the owner, and all socially responsible Belarusians should boycott all restaurants owned by the owner.[32]

e) Added the latest criticism of Prokopenya’s initiative regarding the death penalty abolishment in Belarus. This is an important public discussion to be included in this section.

6. Ensured NPOV version re. Prokopenya’s detention. The use of “arrest” and “detention” as legal terms was discussed in the media and by lawyers. There even were commentaries on this particular situation by a top attorney, who confirmed, that from the legal standpoint it is not correct to use term “arrest” and “arrested” see here https://udf.by/news/main_news/170652-istoriya-s-udaleniem-kontenta-novye-podrobnosti.html. The attorney I. Pankov on this particular situation was saying that “arrest” is a criminal punishment. And the criminal punishment can be applied only in the result of court sentence in the result of criminal case consideration. That is why, using term “arrest” in the situation, when there is not court sentence is not admissible. Need to note that as one of the measures of pre-trial measure there can be “home arrest”, but as far as I’m aware this measure was not applicable to Prokopenya.”. I double checked it myself, and my legal education was of help. Under Art. 48 of Belarus Criminal Code - “arrest” is the punishment, applicable to a person, committed a crime (http://pravo.by/document/?guid=3871&p0=hk9900275). Prokopenya did not commit crime, there was no court sentence finding him guilty and penalising him for crime. He was detained for the period of preliminary investigation, which ended without court case and punishment. So mentioning words “arrest”, “arrested” may be regarded as implication, that Prokopenya has committed a crime.

Then I have checked the publications and indeed, some of them use wrong word “arrest”, but these are minority. Most of media outlets use correct term - “detained” instead of “arrested” and there are no reasons why Wikipedia page should be different in this regard: https://news.tut.by/economics/441486.html http://uaport.net/news/by/t/1504/03/7791099 https://naviny.by/new/20150403/1428060300-v-minske-zaderzhan-izvestnyy-it-biznesmen-viktor-prokopenya https://www.dw.com/ru/it-%D1%81%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8/a-46171605

Finally, I don’t see the difference from a “whitewashing” standpoint - arrest and detention are the same, however this strikes my lawyer’s eye and I do not want to see anybody saying later that there are such kind of mistakes in the article I’ve edited.

7. Deleted wrong and duplicated information on “street bail”. There is legally correct statement, that Prokopenya was released on bail. Street bail is a legally incorrect term that is not relevant in this situation.

8. Deleted the information that Prokopenya lost 20 kg. It is not relevant for Wikipedia article about a living person. In fact it is tabloid style information, like edits regarding “tits” earlier.

9. Added missing information regarding the reasons why the media were requested by Prokopenya’s lawyers to amend the information regarding detention. There were numerous mistakes in these articles. “Arrest” instead of “detention”, the same mistake, as was in this article. Some articles were using words “jail” and “prison”, while in accordance with Belarus law, this term can be used only when the person is sentenced to punishment. Some articles used word “charged”, which means absolutely different procedure in countries on common law, when charge is brought officially by the judge, while in Belarus a person can be in pre-trial detainment for a year and longer without court decision. See these commentaries of lawyer in this media publication - https://udf.by/news/main_news/170652-istoriya-s-udaleniem-kontenta-novye-podrobnosti.html.

10. Deleted the mention that the Belarussian media were denounced by the Polish-based channel BelsatTV, because this is relevant, not to Prokopenya's media relations, but to the relationship between Belarussian media and BelSat. Looks like this is promotion of Belsat.

11. The story on detention and media reactions was moved to the "Critics and controversies" section, as this better fits into this section, due to its controversial nature. Moreover, the current wording of this section was incorrect because the word 'arrest' was not used in correct legal context, as previously explained above.

Dear Jim1138, to some extent, I can understand your reaction to my previous edits, when you see that a lot of the information in the critique section is deleted. I thought that some of my edits were reasonable, and thought my explanations were sufficient. I'm new to Wiki, please help me become a good editor. I specialise on Belarus and Belarusian biographies and I have dedicated a lot of time and efforts in making my changes, improve this article and my skills as Wiki editor. I was a bit disappointed, when last time you cancelled all my edits without explanations. I want to be neutral, which is why I also spend time time to find more criticism and I have expanded the section of criticism for now. Please do not criticize my work without justification and do not falsely accuse me.

Before you decide to cancel any of my edits, please provide your thorough arguments. I believe that all my edits are compliant with Wikipedia rules, best practices and all my edits are applicable. Thank you. 可愛い (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You are obviously Prokopenya marketologist hired to whitewash his reputation. This is a major problem in your edits. Perhaps you have changed your account, I think that IP check should be made to establish whether this guy is editing from the same IP of previous edit warrior - eLindas. I cannot find reasonable explanation for very active previous editor ELindas suddenly stopping editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.84.189 (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dear 195.222.84.189. You have cancelled most of my edits in the article without due explanation. Your accusations calling me a “marketologist” and of whitewashing the article are very serious. You must submit evidence to support your accusations. I specialise on biographies of the living who have connections to Belarus and Russia, so far I have made edits to over 40 biographies, including Prokopenya’s. Before making any edits to the Prokopenya article, I’ve researched and spent a lot of time editing this article. I have also taken time to carefully explain each of my edits in previous comment. When editing, I respect the work of other Wiki editors and I would like you to respect mine. I ask you to respect my efforts too and make detailed comments, rather than deleting most of my edits without any justification. I see that you are a beginner. Wiki rules say that we need to help beginners, rather than criticize them. And I really want you to improve so I posted some recommendations and links to relevant quotes to your discussion page. I will return all my edits. Justifications are listed in my previous comment on this talk page. If you continue to roll back my edits without detailed justification re. every edit you make or propose, I will be forced to bring up the issue of your vandalism withthe administrators. Please, see Wikipedia:Vandalism All your justified changes to the article will be very welcome. Thank you! 可愛い (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)