This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Russia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

ZM is the brother of Magomed Magomedov, imprisoned like his brother. Similar allegations, it seems. See Friedrich Schmidt, "Geschäftsrisiko Gefängnis" [Jail as Business Risk], in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wednesday, 2 January 2019, p. 3. - 84.191.96.72 ( talk) 12:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Collapsing all of these into the same section, as the participants haven't figured out that discussion involved talking to each other, rather than creating a new section and writing WP:WALLOFTEXTs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 11:33 on January 25, 2024

Hi Spotted springer7,

Regrettably, I found it necessary to revert to the previous version of Ziyavudin Magomedov’s page. This decision stems from concerns that your update, which occurred at 11:33 on January 25, 2024, appears to be an attempt to undermine my significant contributions to this article under the guise of a routine edit.

You have inexplicably deleted 62 out of 64 of my meticulously researched edits, all of which were based on reputable international sources such as Financial Times, Reuters, CNBC, and Business Insider. Additionally, I drew from highly respected Russian media outlets, including Novaya Gazeta, Meduza, Vedomosti, and Alexey Navalny’s blog.

Labeling information from such credible sources as 'vandalism' is not only inaccurate but also undermines the integrity of the article, particularly when it involves significant revelations about the subject's involvement in corruption and other misconduct.

Furthermore, the wholesale deletion of references to Magomedov’s close ties with former President Medvedev and his aide Arkady Dvorkovich presents a skewed view to Wikipedia readers regarding the nature of Ziyavudin’s business and the origins of his wealth. This goes against Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle, as omitting such information compromises the article's balance.

Crucial information detailing Ziyavudin's arrest, detention, trial, and conviction alongside his brother, business partner, and former Russian senator Magomed Magomedov should not be dismissed. Neither should the information about the court of appeal reducing his sentence by six months. These details contribute significantly to the comprehensive understanding of the subject. It is essential to emphasize that you cannot just take and delete such factual-based information. Preserving these details is crucial for providing a well-rounded and accurate perspective on the subject.

For the sake of transparency and constructive dialogue, I made each of my edits separately. If you have any disagreements with specific edits, I am more than willing to discuss them individually. However, arbitrarily deleting 50 thousand symbols of substantive information, meticulously sourced from reputable outlets, undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and its commitment to factual accuracy. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 23:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 11:28, 30 January 2024

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

Regrettably, I find it necessary to revert to the previous version of the page, citing the same reason as before: the arbitrary deletion of 35K symbols of meticulously researched edits. Instead, changes should be made individually, supported by reliable and reputable sources, with explanations provided to fellow editors – a practice I adhered to when editing this page.

If you review the page's history, you'll notice that I made 27 substantial edits, each accompanied by reputable sources and detailed explanations. This approach enhances transparency and facilitates other editors' ability to update, revert, or discuss each change. Together, we can objectively describe Ziyavudin's life, business decisions, the nature of his wealth, and the reasons behind his arrest. This collaborative approach aligns with Wikipedia's ethos.

It's worth noting my cautious approach when editing contributions from previous editors. For instance, the edit I made at 21:33, 17 January 2024, regarding Summa's annual revenue, focused on updating only one sentence to correct a misreference in the previous version to an FT article.

I expect a similar careful attitude toward other people's contributions on your part.

Your current editing style, arbitrarily deleting 35K symbols, undermines our joint efforts to improve the page and discuss each of the multiple changes you made.

Starting with the first paragraph, when I updated it at 16:13, 17 January 2024, and changed Magomedov’s status from “businessman” to “former oligarch,” I supported my edit with links to FT, where Ziyavudin is consistently referred to as an oligarch. Similar references from other reputable international media, such as CNN and WSJ, can be provided.

In the Russian economic environment, there's a crucial difference between “ oligarchs” like Magomedov, Timchenko, Rotenberg, and businessmen like Volozh, Chichvarkin, Tinkoff, etc. I provided further crucial facts explaining why Ziyavudin was considered an oligarch by both media and the public, supported with links to FT and Meduza, one of the most respected Russian independent media. The same goes for Magomedov’s long friendship with Arkady Dvorkovich, Medvedev’s right hand at the time, who aided Ziyavudin in acquiring assets in various industries, supported by 6(!) links to Financial Times.

You're attempting to replace this meticulously researched paragraph with the previous version, which contains an unsupported statement that Magomedov «was arrested in Russia under politically motivated circumstances and issued with unfounded charges». The sole link in that version leads to a very brief news piece on the RFE/RL website. This piece mentions the Magomedov brothers' lengthy prison term but says nothing about the political nature of Magomedov’s arrest or unfounded charges.

This short piece refers to a slightly longer article in Russian, which states that “Magomedov brothers were associated with the circle around the former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev. After their arrest, their criminal case was also linked to Medvedev's loss of political positions.”

However, this didn’t stop you from deleting information about Ziyavudin’s arrest and imprisonment with his brother Magomed and his political ties with Medvedev. Nor a paragraph about the crackdown on Medvedev’s clan, considered by many analysts as the real reason behind Magomedov brothers’ imprisonment. And this is just the first paragraph; there are many more edits arbitrarily deleted. Hence, each of them needs to be discussed separately.

As for your claim that my edits contain a large amount of original research, unfortunately, you’re mistaken. Each paragraph and sentence I added is supported with links to reputable and reliable sources. If you can prove me wrong, please do so, but not by deleting 35K symbols. Instead, point to the exact piece containing original research, and we can discuss it here on the talk page.

The same applies to so-called long quotations. For example, the quotation from FT describing Magomedov’s controversial deal with their biggest asset — NSCP — is the best piece on the internet describing the real nature of this transaction. There's no need to retell it; it's better to add it to the article.

As mentioned earlier, I am more than willing to discuss this article with you and update it together, but changes should be made individually, supported with reliable links and explanations. If the explanation is lengthy, it can be posted here, on the talk page. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 09:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Odlanier2024 at 09:44, 31 January 2024

I have reversed your edit. Once again, I have retained some of your substantive changes, but note that your edits contain a large amount of original research (WP:NOR). Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable and preferably objective secondary source for that interpretation.

I have tidied up the article’s formatting and removed unnecessary and irrelevant information, especially your excessively long quotations which is not standard practice in English Wikipedia.

Thank you for the message above, but I note that you have now simply reversed my edits twice, without seeking to engage with them individually whilst I have attempted to better integrate your contributions. I outline the problems with your edits below:

·       Lead section – The point about Magomedov’s wealth increase under the Medvedev presidency should not be in the lead section, let alone the first paragraph (WP: Lead section) – the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with “due weight attached”. The Medvedev point is just one of several explanations for Magomedov’s wealth and much more importantly far from the most notable point about his biography. This same point applies to the mention of Arkady Dvorkovich, the “6000 list” and political third-parties (such as Alexey Navalny’s) views on his arrest. To summarise, this section is far too long and contains a lot of irrelevant information which isn’t appropriate for the lead section.

·       Education – The fact that Magomedov knew Arkady Dvorkovich at College might warrant inclusion, but again due weight has to be attached to it (WP: Reliable sources and undue weight/NOR) and there should be a neutral POV. For instance, the line “sometimes, Magomedov even beat those who offended Dvorkovich” is clearly not objective. The cited source doesn’t even say this outright but rather includes it in a quote from an anonymous source. This is original research. The other problem here is the length of the quotes – this is not standard practice in English Wikipedia (WP: Overuse [of Quotes]) and gives the point undue weight in what is a biography page. Quotations should not dominate articles, especially biographies – the below is from Wikipedia’s guidance:

1.     Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source.

2.     Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working small portions of the quotation into the article text, or both.

I hope you’ll now agree my edits include the relevant information whilst mitigating these problems.

·       Career – This section has many of the same problems as above with repetition, excessively long quotes throughout and lack of objectivity (WP: NPOV). For instance, the lines “Thanks to his connections with Medvedev’s right-hand man, Magomedov rapidly ascended in status” and “Summa, which had no prior experience in the telecommunications market, unexpectedly obtained a federal license” are editorialising and original research. This also applies to sub-headings “King of State Contracts”; “Rapid rise during Medvedev’s presidency” which you present as factual assertions but which are, in reality, commentary.

The notion that Magomedov is an oligarch who benefited from special favours from Medvedev’s government is just one interpretation which you are presenting as objective. Whilst Magomedov was able to grow his business during Medvedev’s tenure in office his business success was far from limited to that period. The constant implications of what is being written here is that he did so as a result of institutional favouritism or corruption linked to the regime, which is not a fair representation of the perceived view of Magomedov in the totality of media reports.

Some of the points about the trends in Dmitry Medvedev’s government are however worth including, especially where there is a reliable secondary source which mentions its overlap with Magomedov, but again you use excessive and at times irrelevant detail. This is Magomedov’s biography page not a page about privatisations in the Russian economy, 2008-2012 so most of the edits you made give “ undue weight to topics unrelated to notability” (WP: Biography dos and don'ts). I made my edits to mitigate this – you will see the FT comment is in fact still included. If you’d like to re-adapt your points whilst considering the above then feel free.

I also fixed issues with formatting, spelling and random bolding in this section which I think were needlessly reversed and I hope you adopt a more collaborative attitude toward other people's contributions.

·       Corruption allegations – The main problem with this section is that undue weight is given to claims which are quite tenuous and not really about Magomedov. Moreover, the cited sources aren’t necessarily reliable, mostly being political organisations (Dossier Center; Anti-Corruption Foundation) rather than news organisations (WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)

No reliable secondary source has reported or verified these claims, moreover, Ziyavudin Magomedov is a mere footnote in your cited sources which barely reference him. Even the sources which make mention of Magomedov are careful to use the word “allegedly”. In any case, something which “can be linked to Magomedov” is too tenuous for a biography article and this section gives it undue weight. You should also be careful not to confuse Ziyavudin with his brother Magomed Magomedov.

·       Proximity to Putin’s Regime and Political Stance – Once again, this whole section is undermined by original research, tenuous links to Magomedov’s life, excessively long quotations and the undue weight applied to it. Magomedov is not close to Nikolay Tokarev given he recently filed a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy against him. Your edits about Mr Magomedov’s loose associations with the Valdai Club and Night Hockey League don’t really add anything to the article, nor do the references to his wife or brother's affairs. Spotted springer7 ( talk) 17:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 16:39, 31 January 2024

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

Unfortunately, I find it necessary to once again revert to the previous version of the page, citing the same reason as before: the arbitrary deletion of 35K symbols of meticulously researched edits, which was again done in one single update.

First and foremost, it appears that you haven’t given much attention to my main request, which was to make each edit separately. Additionally, you must provide sources and explanations for each update, allowing for a thorough discussion of your contribution. This is a matter of respect towards other editors of the page.

I am more than willing to discuss each update, and some of your claims seem reasonable to me. However, for the convenience of both of us and other editors of this page, you must refrain from the practice of deleting substantial fragments of other people's contributions. Let's work collaboratively to improve the page without compromising the efforts of fellow contributors.

Now, addressing your comments regarding the content of the page:

"So-called 'original research' on my side.

The assertion that Magomedov knew Arkady Dvorkovich at Moscow University and its subsequent significant impact on Ziyavudin’s wealth is not a product of my 'original research.' Instead, it is grounded in multiple sources, thoughtfully provided by me. I've included nearly a dozen links to support this claim, and the list can be easily expanded. Before leveling such allegations, it is imperative to carefully scrutinise all the links I've presented. Financial Times consistently highlighted the friendship with Dvorkovich and its role in Ziyavudin’s success in every profile of Magomedov and Summa. Similar reports were found in Novaya Gazeta, Bloomberg, Meduza, The Bell, Vedomosti, and various other respected international and Russian business media outlets. The list is exhaustive.

The same principle applies to your assertions of 'undue weight' and 'neutral point of view.' The friendship with Dvorkovich is pivotal to Ziyavudin’s story, justifying the weight assigned to this fact. My stance is entirely neutral, and I objectively represent the most reliable sources.

You mentioned, "The notion that Magomedov is an oligarch who benefited from special favours from Medvedev’s government is just one interpretation that you are presenting as objective."

Alright, I challenge you to provide Wikipedia readers with an equivalent number of links from sources such as FT, WSJ, Bloomberg, Vedomosti (prior to 2020, when it was sold by Demian Kudryavtsev), Novaya Gazeta, etc., which narrate the story that Magomedov abruptly attained billionaire status solely due to his unparalleled entrepreneurial talent. Best of luck with that.

You assert, "Whilst Magomedov was able to grow his business during Medvedev’s tenure in office, his business success was far from limited to that period." However, this claim doesn't align with the factual data. Ziyavudin’s net worth increased more than twelvefold during Medvedev’s presidency — from $70M to $850M. In the following four years he added an additional $550M, reaching his peak net worth of $1.4B in 2017.

Can we argue that at least this $550M cannot be attributed to Medvedev and Dvorkovich? Unfortunately, no. After 2012, Medvedev continued as the Russian Prime Minister, and Dvorkovich became his deputy overseeing the exact industries where Magomedov’s Summa was operating. The situation unfolds as follows: Ziyavudin’s best friend becomes a key economic aide to the President and later the Prime Minister. Subsequently, Magomedov’s companies secure multibillion-dollar state contracts in these industries. It seems like an astonishing coincidence, doesn't it?

I substantiate these claims with quotations from Forbes and Novaya Gazeta. These quotations are vital because they elucidate the nature of Magomedov’s wealth. Out of his peak net worth of $1.4B, he gained $1.33B due to his connections with Medvedev and Dvorkovich.

Dvorkovich lost his position as deputy prime minister in May 2018, less than two months after his friend Ziyavudin Magomedov, the key oligarch of the so-called Medvedev’s clan, was arrested. Doesn't it strike you as too many coincidences?

Hence, if you persist in asserting that Magomedov’s wealth originates from something other than "institutional favoritism or corruption linked to the regime," kindly provide Wikipedia readers with an equivalent number of links from reputable sources such as FT, WSJ, and others that extol his entrepreneurial genius.

The True Original Research on Your Part

If you're opening the discussion on "original research," I'd like to subject some of your own contributions to the same scrutiny. Take, for instance, your revision at 10:49, March 30, 2023, where you assert that Mikhail Rabinovich is a "Kremlin-affiliated" businessman. The sole source you provide is a somewhat obscure website, intelligenceonline.com.

Do you believe it's fair to accuse someone of Kremlin connections based on a single link from a relatively unknown website? Meanwhile, I find myself restricted from stating that Magomedov accumulated his wealth through associations with Dvorkovich and Medvedev, substantiating this claim with dozens of relevant links from reputable sources like FT, WSJ, Novaya Gazeta, Meduza, Vedomosti, and others, all supporting this very assertion?

I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice a hint of hypocrisy and double standards on your part.

Unsourced First Paragraph

In the same revision made at 10:49 on March 30, 2023, you assert: "In March 2018, he was arrested in Russia under politically motivated circumstances and issued with unfounded charges of 'racketeering and embezzlement of state funds'. Despite the lack of any evidence, in December 2022 he was sentenced to an unprecedented term of 19 years in prison."

Notably, you provide no supporting links for these claims. What grounds exist for concluding that his arrest was politically motivated? Can you substantiate the assertion that the charges were unfounded? Is there any evidence to support the claim that the court received no evidence?

It appears that all three of these claims are, in essence, your original research. This is why I am substituting these unproven claims with factually-based information about the growth of Ziyavudin's wealth during the presidency of Medvedev.

As previously mentioned, you consistently replace my well-elaborated and sourced first paragraph with your version, which relies on only one link that fails to support any of your claims. The term "political circumstances" is particularly ambiguous, leaving the reader with the impression that Ziyavudin is a dissident or Kremlin critic similar to Alexey Navalny, Ilya Yashin, or Vladimir Kara-Murza. However, this is not the case.

In Ziyavudin's situation, "political circumstances" indicate that he became a victim of infighting between corrupt factions within Putin’s regime, specifically the crackdown on Medvedev’s clan. My version of the article includes a well-sourced paragraph on this, featuring four links to Financial Times and one to Novaya Gazeta. Strangely, you persistently delete this crucial paragraph, vital for understanding the cause of Ziyavudin’s arrest.

Furthermore, the only link to RFE/RL that you retain in your version of the first paragraph conveys the same narrative: "Magomedov brothers were associated with the circle around the former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev. After their arrest, the criminal case was also linked to Medvedev's loss of political positions."

Corruption Allegations

You argue that "undue weight is given to claims which are quite tenuous and not really about Magomedov. Moreover, the cited sources aren’t necessarily reliable, mostly being political organisations (Dossier Center; Anti-Corruption Foundation) rather than news organisations (WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)”.

It's crucial to note that these investigative organizations undergo constant scrutiny from multiple independent media outlets, and their claims are consistently well-researched. This is why they are frequently cited by the most reliable independent media, including the Financial Times. If you harbor any doubts, I am more than willing to provide additional links to reputable media within this section.

These allegations, asserting that Magomedov was involved in high-level corruption, hold significant importance for Wikipedia readers seeking to comprehend the nature of his wealth and his proximity to the regime. The same pertains to the section delineating his political stance and his legal dispute with Navalny.

Size of the Article

I find it perplexing why there's such an emphasis on reducing the article's length. A comparable case to Ziyavudin is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, another former Russian oligarch imprisoned during Putin's era. Surprisingly, Khodorkovsky's page is even more extensive.

Despite evolving into a genuine dissident, political prisoner, and prominent opponent of Putin after his arrest, his page provides a relatively honest portrayal of the nature of his wealth and questionable practices exploited in the 1990s. He is not depicted as an individual with an impeccable reputation who consistently fought against Putin's authoritarian regime.

Khodorkovsky was arrested alongside his business partner Platon Lebedev, and both spent over a decade in prison. Notably, Khodorkovsky's Wikipedia page includes this significant fact. Consequently, it stands to reason that Ziyavudin's arrest, trial, and conviction alongside his brother and business partner, Magomed, should be acknowledged. I fail to comprehend why any mention of Magomed is consistently deleted by you from Ziyavudin's page.

Therefore, I draw several conclusions:

First: Given Ziyavudin's status as the main oligarch of Medvedev’s clan, he deserves a page of equivalent size and detail as Khodorkovsky.

Second: There is not even the slightest evidence that Ziyavudin ever opposed Putin. Magomedov never criticized Putin's regime, its repressions against political opponents, or rampant corruption. He never voiced opposition to Putin's war in Ukraine. This cannot be attributed to his imprisonment, as other dissidents like Alexey Navalny or Vladimir Kara-Murza, who faced even lengthier sentences than Ziyavudin, openly criticize the war in Ukraine.

Thus, Magomedov cannot be remotely portrayed as a political opponent or dissident unjustly persecuted by the regime. His life trajectory reveals a different story: he was an oligarch who benefited from proximity to power but later fell out of favor, becoming a victim of internal power struggles. I strongly advocate that his page should reflect this narrative, supported by multiple sources.

Third: Ziyavudin's page should include information about his business partner and brother, Magomed, and his connections within Putin's regime, including the Russian Geographical Society and Night Hockey League. These facts are crucial for understanding the nature of Magomedov's brother's wealth, and they are consistently highlighted by reputable sources such as Financial Times and Novaya Gazeta.

In conclusion, I will revert the page, and I am open to further discussions on individual edits. Let's work collaboratively to present a well-rounded and accurate depiction of Ziyavudin Magomedov's story. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 13:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Odlanier2024 on 3 February

Dear Odlanier2024,

You’ll see I’ve reversed some of your changes, but in the spirit of collaboration I’ve adapted even more of your research, so it is now appropriate for the page.

I have now attempted to integrate your work and research into the page twice now, whereas you keep refusing to engage with my points at all despite conceding that some of them are reasonable. This hardly seems in keeping with Wikipedia’s spirit of collaboration. Please do not simply undo these edits without further engagement – you have done so three times and I’m sure you are aware of the three-revert rule (WP: 3RR).

To take your points in turn:

o Point One – "So-called 'original research' on my side”

I did, in fact, include your mention of Arkady Dvorkovich in my last edit, under the “Education” section. As I said in my previous message the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with “due weight attached” – the point is therefore not appropriate for the lead section which is already far too long (please see my message above if this isn’t clear). The same applies to the point about Alexey Navalny’s allegations (again, please see above)!

Some of your points about Dvorkovich are reasonable and I have now added a line which more clearly links his tenure in office to the peak of Magomedov’s business success. But you shouldn’t write lines like “thanks to his connections with Medvedev right-hand man, Magomedov rapidly ascended in status” or leave the reader with the overall impression that Magomedov is only notable due to his links with Dvorkovich/Medvedev and only made his wealth as a result of them. The period saw Russia’s largest privatisations since the 1990s – a well-documented macro-economic trend during the Medvedev presidency, but you don’t mention this and instead depict the Summa privatisations as an exception.

You’ll notice that even the FT article which you cite was far more balanced (both in tone and content) than your edits – and that is a piece of journalism. Wikipedia should be even more objective – as Wikipedia’s guidance says you should “avoid stating opinions as facts” and “avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts” (WP:NPOV). You can’t just cherry-pick some quotes you like from the piece (WP: Synthesis of published material). I’m sure you’ll be aware that Magomedov also separately invested in a number of highly successful western businesses including diamond maker Diamond Foundry, travel booker Peek, and Uber in 2014. The Summa Group also had several successful ventures in Diamant Bank, Interfinance, mining and energy well before 2008.

My other points – about your overuse of quotes, lack of a neutral voice, use of unreliable/political sources and original research unfortunately also still stand. To be clear, the problems with original research stem from when you take selected quotes from sources out of context and do not present the information factually or objectively: “Sometimes, Magomedov even beat those who offended Dvorkovich”; “his long and close friendship with Arkady Dvorkovich”; “thanks to his connections with Mevevdev’s right-hand man, Magomedov rapidly ascended in status”; “Timchenko, known as one of Vladimir Putin's closest allies, testified in court in support of the detained yacht donors, but this support did not lead to their release”; “closely connected to Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov and Gennady Timchenko”. In all three of these cases, you reach conclusions not explicitly stated in sources OR which aren’t properly contextualised OR hugely exaggerate the case by citing political sources.

If the FT, or Novaya Gazeta quotes a source, especially an anonymous source, making a claim about Magomedov’s life then you need to make that clear in the article. Equally, you should make any rebuttals clear – Magomedov denies several of your allegations in the very piece which you cite.

Finally, you ask about the coincidental timing of Dvorkovich’s removal from office. Surely, all this proves is that Magomedov was arrested whilst Dvorkovich was Deputy PM – which would suggest the closeness of their relationship was overstated or the political influence of Dvorkovich’s patronage was?

o Point Two – “The True Original Research on Your Part”

I’ve outlined the problems with your framing of sources above. Mikhail Rabinovich has been linked to the Kremlin by an objective, reliable source.

o Point Three – “Unsourced First Paragraph”

I don’t agree at all that the phrase “political circumstances” leads the reader to conclude that Magomedov was a dissident similar to Alexey Navalny etc. On the contrary, I was careful not to use that wording. In terms of your questions:

According to your own narrative, Magomedov was arrested due to his relationships to Arkady Dvorkovich and Dmitry Medvedev. How can this be described as anything other than political? More importantly, Magomedov’s conflicts with state-owned business Transneft have been well-documented in the Financial Times which is another potential “political” explanation. You wrote yourself “Independent political analysts acknowledged that the specific charges of 'embezzlement of state funds' during the construction of a soccer World Cup venue in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad against Magomedov were largely unfounded”.

o Point Four – “Corruption Allegations”

All of these claims remain unevidenced, unverified and have been denied by Magomedov. I would add again that most of the cited sources you use barely mention Magomedov and certainly don’t provide any evidence for the claims.

Most of this section and the cited sources barely cover Magomedov – these stories about Russian elite corruption and have no place in this article. The Business Insider article on Putin’s yacht is 500 words long and refers to Magomedov only once – saying an offshore company allegedly involved “can be linked to Magomedov”. You’ll also see that the Dossier Center article (from is the original source) doesn’t write anything definitively – the whole piece speculates and doesn’t make any explicit claims: “if this is indeed the same company”; “perhaps…”; “may be connected”; “could be..”.

In any case, something which “can be linked to Magomedov” is too tenuous for a biography article and this section gives it undue weight. You should also be careful not to confuse Ziyavudin with his brother Magomed Magomedov.

I once again suggest you look at Wikipedia’s guidance on Biographies (WP: Biographies of a living person) – especially the sections on contentious material and balance.

o Point Five – “Size of the Article”

I disagree with several points here and refer you again to my message above. Firstly, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a far more significant figure in both Russian political and business history than Magomedov. Another major problem with the article is the length of quotations – this is not standard practice in English Wikipedia (WP: Overuse [of Quotes]). Throughout you use them to give your points undue weight in what is a biography page. Quotations should not dominate articles, especially biographies – please see my message above for more information.

To take your example, you’ll see that Khodorkovsky’s page doesn’t have any of these features and is almost entirely written in chronological form. Despite it being widely accepted that Khodorkovsky had close relationships with Russian elites before his arrest, there is no section on his previous “Proximity to Putin’s regime” – listing every minor sports club, membership and family relationship, but just a far shorter section on his relationship with Putin. The section you added is a huge appendix which gives irrelevant information undue weight for a biography page. Spotted springer7 ( talk) 15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

February 22, 2024: Restoring the full version of the page

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

This message focuses solely on your approach to editing this page. Other issues will be addressed in subsequent messages.

I find it necessary to once again restore the full version of the page, citing the same reason as before: the arbitrary deletion of 35K symbols of meticulously researched edits, which was again done in a single update.

I’m glad that you brought up the three-revert rule (WP:3RR). If you carefully study the revision history of this page, you will find that you are the person who started this process at 11:33, January 25, 2024‎. You have been constantly reverting the contributions of another editor, and you’ve already done it four times.

On January 25, you deleted 50K symbols of my edits, which were entirely based on reputable and reliable sources. You even labeled them as vandalism. After I repeatedly pointed out that my edits were supported by multiple links to reputable international and Russian sources such as FT, WSJ, Novaya Gazeta, Meduza, etc., you reluctantly incorporated 16K of my contributions into the previous version of the page. However, this version lacks reliable sources in many paragraphs, especially the first one.

I need to clarify that I haven’t deleted any of your contributions or those of other editors. I modified some contributions to better reflect the content of the source, doing so carefully and with respect. I updated other editors' input sentence by sentence and explained each change in the related edit summary. I never arbitrarily deleted large chunks of others' work, especially without proper explanation.

When I restore my meticulously researched contributions, I'm not violating Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration, whereas your repeated attempts to delete my work are hardly in line with certain Wikipedia rules.

I suggest you carefully review Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidance (WP:DR), which strictly recommends to «follow the normal protocol» while resolving content disputes.

It states:

«When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war».

Even if you don’t agree with some of my contributions, since all of them are based on reputable and reliable sources, they must be considered salvageable text. This means that even if you think some of them lack neutrality, Wikipedia guidelines recommend adding balancing material instead of deleting well-sourced contributions.

Wikipedia's guidance on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) conveys the same idea:

«Achieving neutrality

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process».

It unequivocally states that instead of deleting well-sourced contributions of another editor, you should balance it "with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective."

I have asked you several times to do just this: if you disagree with the narrative that Ziyavudin Magomedov obtained the overwhelming majority of his wealth because of proximity to Medvedev, Dvorkovich, and other key figures of Putin’s regime, please provide reliable and reputable sources that support the opposite point of view: that he became a billionaire solely because of his entrepreneurial talent.

The same NPOV guidance says:

"By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any individual editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority."

I have meticulously researched almost all articles in reputable sources that cover Ziyavudin Magomedov’s business and life journey. The overwhelming majority of media and independent observers tell the same story: Magomedov was an oligarch who first benefited from proximity to the corrupt Putin’s regime but later became a victim of infighting between different clans within the Russian ruling circles. I supported this point of view with dozens of links to the most reputable international and Russian media. If you think my research is incomplete and you want to find evidence that Zuyavudin became a billionaire because of his entrepreneurial genius, please provide Wikipedia readers with a comparable number of links to reputable sources.

I once again kindly ask you to refrain from the practice of deleting substantial fragments of other people's contributions. Please make each edit separately and provide explanations for each update. This is a matter of respect towards other editors of the page.

Also, for the spirit of collaboration, please follow Wikipedia rules and stop deleting sourced contributions, but balance them with your own input.

Lastly, our messages on the talk page are becoming longer because it's almost impossible to discuss multiple edits in one message. This is also why separate edits are necessary for the convenience of both of us and other editors of this page. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 06:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

February 22, 2024: Size of the Article

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

I'm writing to discuss point five from your previous message concerning the size of the article.

The full version of the article on Ziyavudin Magomedov contains slightly over 5500 words of readable content. This brings us to the question: Is the article excessively lengthy? To answer this, I referred to the Wikipedia guidance on Article size (WP:SIZE), particularly the "Size Guideline" section.

According to the guideline, "Articles under 6,000 words: Length alone does not justify division or trimming... Please note: These rules of thumb are intended to be approximate and apply only to readable prose – not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)."

This means that, according to Wikipedia's standards, the current size of the article, by itself, is not a valid reason for its reduction.

Let us compare the Wikipedia pages of Magomedov and Khodorkovsky.

In your comment, you stated: "I disagree with several points here and refer you again to my previous message. Firstly, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a significantly more prominent figure in Russian political and business history than Magomedov. Another issue with the article is the excessive length of quotations, which deviates from standard practice on English Wikipedia (refer to WP: Overuse [of Quotes]). You have used quotations excessively, giving undue weight to certain points in a biographical article. Quotations should not dominate, particularly in biographies. For further details, please refer to my previous message."

While I concur that Khodorkovsky holds greater significance, it's worth noting that his page spans over 12,000 words, nearly 2.5 times the length of Magomedov's complete article.

Nonetheless, Magomedov's narrative is equally pivotal for the contemporary Russian business community, mirroring the significance Khodorkovsky held in the 2000s. Khodorkovsky was the wealthiest individual imprisoned in the 2000s, whereas Magomedov was the wealthiest individual imprisoned in the 2010s.

Magomedov's case illustrates the stark transformation in high-level business disputes. In the early 2000s, the conflict was between an independent oligarch and the newly elected president, who sought to assert his influence over the business sector. By the late 2010s, all oligarchs had their fortunes tied to Putin's regime, which reduced business conflicts to infighting between Kremlin-affiliated clans. This is why Magomedov's imprisonment lacked a political dimension. Unlike Khodorkovsky, Magomedov, even post-arrest, did not voice opposition to Putin's regime or criticize corruption and political repression, as he had benefited from these systems prior to his arrest.

It is essential for Wikipedia readers to access a comprehensive and well-sourced account of Ziyavudin Magomedov's business endeavors, political stance, ties within Putin's regime, and the reasons behind his arrest.

Regarding your point about the use of quotations, a thorough review of Khodorkovsky's article shows a significant reliance on quotes from Masha Gessen, with a total of 22 instances. These quotations serve to shed light on critical elements of Khodorkovsky’s story. In comparison, the total number of quotations in the current article on Magomedov is just 20. Nearly all of these quotes provide an exact depiction of the most pivotal events in Magomedov's life and career, which fully justifies their inclusion. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 07:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

February 22, 2024: Uninformed assumptions lead to edits which don't meet Wikipedia standards

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

This message highlights a critical issue that adversely affects the overall quality of the article on Ziyavudin Magomedov. Many of your edits, along with the comments explaining those edits, display a lack of understanding of the context in which the events of Magomedov's life occurred. Consequently, these assumptions, which are based on insufficient knowledge, lead to edits that omit many important facts, thereby depriving Wikipedia readers of essential information.

1. Dvorkovich and his patronage.

On February 7 you wrote:

“Finally, you ask about the coincidental timing of Dvorkovich’s removal from office. Surely, all this proves is that Magomedov was arrested whilst Dvorkovich was Deputy PM – which would suggest the closeness of their relationship was overstated or the political influence of Dvorkovich’s patronage was?”.

This comment suggests that you missed an opportunity to establish crucial connections between Ziyavudin’s arrest and major political events which were taking place at the time in Russia. Those who closely follow Russian politics would never miss those important links. I have been personally following Russian politics since 1989 and I would strongly recommend refraining from editing such a critical Wikipedia article until there is a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental events in the Russian political process.

On March 18, 2018, Vladimir Putin was elected as Russian President for the fourth time. The Federal Constitutional Law #2-FKZ “On the Government of the Russian Federation” states: “The Government of the Russian Federation resigns its powers to the newly elected President of the Russian Federation”. In the Russian Federation, it's common practice for the government to resign after the inauguration of the new president. It happens even if incumbent wins the election and even if he later reinstates the same prime minister. But even under such circumstances, the composition of the government changes significantly.

This was also the case in spring of 2018. Medvedev’s government resigned on May 7, 2018, the exact date when Putin’s inauguration took place. During his third term Putin honored certain obligations to Medvedev and his circle as gratitude for the fact that Medvedev acted as placeholder in 2008-2012 and after that returned the presidency to Putin. After Vladimir Putin was elected for the fourth time, these obligations expired. It was clear that Putin would get rid of the people close to Medvedev in order to weaken the influence that he had retained since his presidency. Dvorkovich, his right hand-man, was certainly among these closest aides. On May 18, 2018, when the new composition of the government was approved by Putin, Dvorkovich was relegated to the relatively insignificant position of co-chair of the Skolkovo Foundation board.

Essentially, between March 18, 2018, and May 7, 2018, Dvorkovich was a lame duck. He was on his way out, having already lost any remaining influence. On March 31, 2018, when the Magomedov brothers were arrested, it was well-known within Russian ruling circles that they had lost their patronage.

This sequence of events offers a clear explanation of the situation. When Dvorkovich served as the key economic aide to President Medvedev from 2008 to 2012, Ziyavudin Magomedov rose to become a billionaire and was listed as one of the top figures in Forbes' "Kings of State Contracts." However, following the 2012 role reversal between Putin and Medvedev, Dvorkovich began to gradually lose his power and influence. As a result, Magomedov started losing his contracts and assets. By 2016, Ziyavudin was no longer featured in the Forbes 'Kings of State Contracts' ranking. Dvorkovich's complete loss of power, coinciding with Putin's fourth election victory, was followed by Magomedov's arrest.

This sequence of facts answers both of your questions:

·      “Was the closeness of Magomedov-Dvorkovich relationship overstated?” No, their friendship was affirmed multiple times by both Magomedov and Summa.

·      “Was the political influence of Dvorkovich’s patronage overstated?” No, because during Dvorkovich's peak influence, Magomedov's wealth increased elevenfold in just one year, elevating him to billionaire status. Shortly after Dvorkovich lost his remaining influence, the Magomedov brothers were arrested.

2. Forbes ranking “The Kings Of State Contracts” Forbes' ranking "The Kings Of State Contracts" serves a significant purpose. The fact that you’re constantly deleting mentions of Ziyavudin Magomedov holding the fourth position in this ranking strikes me as very odd. The only possible explanation for this repeated behavior is a lack of relevant knowledge and competence, which makes you unable to comprehend the importance of this ranking in determining an individual's role in the Russian economy.

Forbes introduced this ranking for a valid reason: their list of billionaires failed to accurately reflect the realities of the corrupt Russian economy, where the state owns more than 50% of the assets. In such an economy, control over the multibillion-dollar flows from government contracts is often more crucial than the formal ownership of assets. For instance, in the 2012 ranking where Magomedov secured 4th place, the top spot was held by Arkady Rotenberg, a close friend and former judo sparring partner of Putin. This illustrates that Rotenberg's real economic power and influence far exceed his formal ranking on the Forbes billionaires list.

Magomedov's fourth place in this ranking demonstrates his significant connections within the Russian government. His gradual decline in this ranking during the 2010s also provides valuable insights.

Yet, for some reason, this critical subsection is repeatedly being deleted and replaced with a brief paragraph that merely states:

“According to Forbes, in 2011 the company garnered 226 billion rubles (approx. $7.5 billion by the annual average exchange rate) from state contracts in railroad, electricity, and pipeline construction. Summa’s major clients were state-owned entities like RZD, Transneft, and FSK Rosseti”.

This action deprives Wikipedia readers of a crucial dimension of Magomedov's business journey as an oligarch. It is akin to editing Elon Musk's article by constantly removing the fact that he is the second wealthiest person in the world, according to Forbes and the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, and mentioning only the mere figure of his wealth.

The problem is that figure doesn’t tell the whole story. Removing any mentions of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index from Musk's article deprives Wikipedia readers of important context regarding his standing among the world's richest businessmen. Similarly, deleting mentions of the "King of State Contracts" ranking from Magomedov's article eliminates critical, quantifiable information that highlights his proximity to power, a crucial aspect in the unique context of Russia.

3. Khodorkovsky and “Proximity to Putin’s regime”. Let’s examine the following comment:

“Despite it being widely accepted that Khodorkovsky had close relationships with Russian elites before his arrest, there is no section on his previous “Proximity to Putin’s regime” – listing every minor sports club, membership and family relationship, but just a far shorter section on his relationship with Putin. The section you added is a huge appendix which gives irrelevant information undue weight for a biography page”.

The fact that you conflate Russian elites with Putin's inner circle in the context of Khodorkovsky, and mention him and 'proximity to Putin's regime' in the same sentence, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.

First, Khodorkovsky was never connected to the so-called second wave of Russian oligarchs which consisted of Putin’s friends and colleagues, either from his years in the St Petersburg municipal administration or his Dresden tenure in the KGB.

In contrast, the Magomedov brothers secured multibillion-dollar state contracts through their connections with Medvedev and Dvorkovich. They also engaged in business with Nikolay Tokarev and were linked to Gennadiy Timchenko. There is evidence suggesting they assisted Timchenko in acquiring Putin’s costly yacht — Scheherazade. Conversely, there is no evidence implicating Khodorkovsky in any bribery involving high-ranking officials associated with Putin or Putin himself.

Second, although Khodorkovsky acquired his principal asset, Yukos, through state connections, this occurred in 1996, under the administration of then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin, not Putin. The so-called Putin regime only materialized post-Khodorkovsky's imprisonment. Furthermore, his arrest marked a significant juncture in the consolidation of Putin's regime, rendering any talk of 'Proximity to Putin's regime' in relation to Khodorkovsky almost paradoxical. Those who take responsibility to edit an article on a Russian oligarch should be aware of these pivotal aspects of Russian history.

After 2008, the Magomedov brothers' fortunes soared, thanks to their ties to figures like Dmitriy Medvedev, Arkady Dvorkovich, and Nikolay Tokarev, all appointees of Vladimir Putin. By this time, Khodorkovsky was incarcerated, the media was monopolized, and the opposition marginalized. Putin's regime had solidified, and the Magomedovs' wealth accumulation was facilitated by those at the heart of this regime.

This represents a crucial distinction between Ziyavudin Magomedov and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, illustrating why a section titled 'Proximity to Putin's Regime' is inappropriate for Mikhail Khodorkovsky's article but essential for Ziyavudin Magomedov's.

Third, Khodorkovsky engaged in political conflict with Putin, financially supporting opposition parties, independent media, and civil society initiatives. He publicly advocated for the transformation of Russia into a parliamentary republic, posing a direct threat to Putin's power. Khodorkovsky openly criticized the corruption in Putin’s government, even in personal encounters. These actions clearly position Khodorkovsky as an outspoken adversary of the nascent Putin regime.

Such events are completely absent from Ziyavudin Magomedov's biography. There isn't a single episode that even remotely resembles political engagement. The likely reason is that he is still close to key figures within Putin's circle. Therefore, the inclusion of section "Proximity to Putin's regime" in Magomedov's article is imperative. It provides readers with important and relevant information, and its weight is justified given that these connections (with Dvorkovich, Medvedev, Timchenko, Tokarev, Peskov, etc.) are consistently highlighted in every reputable and reliable sources that cover Ziyavudin Magomedov.

4. “Minor sports clubs”

Now, let's discuss 'every minor sports clubs,' by which as far as I understand you mean the Night Hockey League.

On February 7 you wrote:

“There is no section on his previous “Proximity to Putin’s regime” – listing every minor sports club, membership and family relationship”.

This comment once again seems to be based on an assumption made without a thorough examination of the relevant subject matter.

The significance of the Night Hockey League as a platform for communication among members of the Russian elite and high-ranking government officials, including Vladimir Putin himself, cannot be overstated. It offers a unique opportunity for prominent businessmen and statesmen to share the ice with Putin and to personally meet him in the dressing room. Consequently, every affluent and influential Russian is eager to join this league, regardless of their prior experience with hockey. This was precisely the case for both Ziyavudin Magomedov and Magomed Magomedov.

When the Financial Times and Novaya Gazeta consistently mention the sponsorship of the Night Hockey League as a noteworthy fact in their articles about the Magomedov brothers, they do so with good reason.

However, let's temporarily set aside the Magomedov brothers and the Financial Times. Consider instead a Bloomberg article that covered Mikhail Mishustin's appointment as Russian Prime Minister in 2020. It included the following quote: "While he’s not widely known outside of the tax authority, Mishustin developed a rapport with Putin as a member of the president’s Night Hockey League."

According to Bloomberg, this 'minor sports club' played a pivotal role in the appointment of the individual who now occupies the second-highest position in the Russian state hierarchy. Moreover, the Financial Times mentions this "minor sports club" as frequently as it does the Kontinental Hockey League, which includes hockey clubs from Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and China, underscoring Night Hockey Leagues's significant influence on the country's political and economic landscape.

Consider the number of businessmen and oligarchs who were eager to sponsor this "minor sports club." The Magomedov brothers succeeded in this competitive arena. We can only speculate about their proximity to Putin's regime, given that they were permitted to sponsor Putin’s personal hockey league. If this information is deemed noteworthy by the Financial Times, it certainly warrants inclusion in Ziyavudin Magomedov’s Wikipedia article. The same applies to the Russian Geographical Society, which plays an even more significant role.

These are just four of the most striking examples, but I can continue with many more.

5.     Summa privatisations as an Exception 

You write:

“The period saw Russia’s largest privatisations since the 1990s – a well-documented macro-economic trend during the Medvedev presidency, but you don’t mention this and instead depict the Summa privatisations as an exception”.

It appears you did not thoroughly investigate the fate of the companies mentioned in the link you provided to support your statement. None of the companies listed in the article, such as Sovkomflot, Rostelecom, or Transneft, were actually privatized. Therefore, it seems that the Summa privatizations were indeed an exception.

6.     Pure Business Conflict with Transneft 

In your message, you mention:

“According to your own narrative, Magomedov was arrested due to his relationships to Arkady Dvorkovich and Dmitry Medvedev. How can this be described as anything other than political? More importantly, Magomedov’s conflicts with state-owned business Transneft have been well-documented in the Financial Times which is another potential “political” explanation”.

Upon a detailed examination of the article in the Financial Times, it becomes evident that the conflict between Summa and Transneft was not political in nature. The article highlights several points:

It mentions:

·      A difference in corporate culture.

·      Accusations from Transneft towards Summa for repeatedly ignoring its interests as a shareholder at NCSP, along with demands for a change in the ports company's management.

·      Power struggle

·      Attempts by Summa to acquire the government's 20% stake in NCSP, which was scheduled for privatisation.

·      Commercial disagreements: “Tokarev told Kommersant that Summa had expected to provide low-cost logistics services at an oil storage terminal the group plans to build at Rotterdam port to serve as a trading hub for Russian oil”.

A deeper look into Ziyavudin Magomedov’s full Wikipedia article reveals a quote from Novaya Gazeta that succinctly captures the essence of the conflict between Transneft and Summa:

“Despite the external harmony of this undoubtedly tactical alliance, the first shareholder conflict between the partners arose almost immediately. The parties had long disputed seats on the management board of NCSP. When Magomedov finally secured the right to operational management of the company, the leadership of Transneft suspected the partner of diverting part of the profits in favor of entities under his control.

According to a source in the FSB, the billionaire shifted the center of profit formation to the so-called "pilotage services," which, under contract, performed stevedoring and bunkering work for the port.

"Whoever controls management controls profitability. The port's management significantly inflated the expenses for service works, effectively engaging in the outflow of a large amount of money," says the source”.

This quote more accurately depicts the true nature of the conflict, focusing on specific issues rather than vague references to differences between companies. Therefore, it is essential to retain this quote in the article for a more accurate representation of the events.

Conslusion 

I could provide many more examples, but I believe it's wise to stop here. I hope the examples given sufficiently convey the main idea. I respectfully suggest that before making any edits, you familiarize yourself with the relevant context. Although many of your edits seem to be made without a deep understanding of the Russian political and economic environment, I am still willing to collaborate with you on refining this article. However, I hope you will adhere to the following principles:

1.     Avoid arbitrarily deleting large portions of another editor's contributions.

2.     In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, do not remove text based on reputable sources on the grounds of perceived bias. Instead, try to present a balanced view by including alternative perspectives.

3.     Ensure that your edits are supported by citations from reputable and reliable sources.

4.     Provide an explanation for each significant edit, even if it concerns only a single sentence.

I trust that this time you will give my requests due consideration, allowing us to continue improving this article for the benefit of Wikipedia's readership. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 08:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

February 22, 2024: «Politically motivated circumstances» and unsourced first paragraph

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

This message addresses an important but unverifiable claim in the first paragraph of your version of the article. The claim is that Ziyavudin Magomedov “was arrested in Russia under politically motivated circumstances”.

As you are aware, verifiability (WP:V) stands as one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.

“In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it”.

Unfortunately, the claim about “politically motivated circumstances” is not verified. In my January 31 message, I already noted  that the only link which you provided in support for this claim states something completely different. I’ll quote that message here:

“You're attempting to replace this meticulously researched paragraph with the previous version, which contains an unsupported statement that Magomedov «was arrested in Russia under politically motivated circumstances and issued with unfounded charges». The sole link in that version leads to a very brief news piece on the RFE/RL website. This piece mentions the Magomedov brothers' lengthy prison term but says nothing about the political nature of Magomedov’s arrest or unfounded charges.

This short piece refers to a slightly longer article in Russian, which states that “Magomedov brothers were associated with the circle around the former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev. After their arrest, their criminal case was also linked to Medvedev's loss of political positions.”

However, this didn’t stop you from deleting information about Ziyavudin’s arrest and imprisonment with his brother Magomed and his political ties with Medvedev. Nor a paragraph about the crackdown on Medvedev’s clan, considered by many analysts as the real reason behind Magomedov brothers’ imprisonment. And this is just the first paragraph; there are many more edits arbitrarily deleted. Hence, each of them needs to be discussed separately”.

Furthermore, a thorough search revealed that the label “politically motivated” concerning Ziyavudin Magomedov has been used only several times.

First, it was used by the oligarch himself and his lawyers right after the arrest.

Second time it was used in the lawsuit of Akhmed Bilalov against Herman Gref, CEO of Sberbank, which was filed on Feb 7, 2021. The lawsuit uses this kind of definitions multiple times: “unfounded, politically motivated accusations”, “politically and improperly motivated persecutory campaign”, “politically motivated fabrication” etc.

This source presents two issues. First: it’s a primary source. According to the “Wikipedia:No original research” guidance (WP:NOR), subsection “Primary, secondary and tertiary sources”, we can’t base the most important claim in the article on the primary source without reliable secondary source:

“Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation”.

The second issue is that Bilalov is Magomedov’s cousin. Using his claims violates one of three principal core policies of Wikipedia which is Neutral Point of view ( WP:NPOV).

Third appearance of this phrase “politically motivated” in relation to Ziyavudin is your own edit of this article which was made at 10:49, 30 March 2023. This edit definitely can’t be considered as a reliable source.

Other (and to be honest not very reputable) sources are already using this wording from Wikipedia. There are several examples:

·      https://www.sportspolitika.news/p/how-to-piss-off-a-russian-oligarch

·      https://bloodyelbow.com/2024/01/09/ziyavudin-magomedov-russian-ufc-mma/

·      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12708163/Jailed-billionaire-Russian-oligarch-seeking-12billion-claims-assets-seized-Kremlin-backed-conspiracy-close-relationship-President-Putin-inner-circle.html

So the main problem of using this wording in the article is that there is no reliable and reputable secondary source which supports this claim.

There is another issue I've already raised in our previous messages: Publicly conflating individuals arrested under politically motivated circumstances with those who fell victim to infighting among Kremlin-linked clans is detrimental to the cause of genuine political prisoners—those who are actively opposing Putin's regime. Associating real political prisoners with Ziyavudin Magomedov, who initially capitalized on his connections within the corrupt regime and was later imprisoned by that same regime, can be potentially harmful.

It appears you recognize this issue, as indicated by your message on February 7:

“o Point Three – “Unsourced First Paragraph”

I don’t agree at all that the phrase “political circumstances” leads the reader to conclude that Magomedov was a dissident similar to Alexey Navalny etc. On the contrary, I was careful not to use that wording. In terms of your questions:

According to your own narrative, Magomedov was arrested due to his relationships to Arkady Dvorkovich and Dmitry Medvedev. How can this be described as anything other than political? More importantly, Magomedov’s conflicts with state-owned business Transneft have been well-documented in the Financial Times which is another potential “political” explanation. You wrote yourself “Independent political analysts acknowledged that the specific charges of 'embezzlement of state funds' during the construction of a soccer World Cup venue in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad against Magomedov were largely unfounded”.

First: I’ve never stated that Magomedov was arrested due to his relationships to Arkady Dvorkovich and Dmitry Medvedev. I’ve stated that he had become billionaire because of his ties to them. It’s a completely different story.

His patrons in Kremlin had lost their influence, and he was arrested because other Kremlin-connected clans were interested in his assets. There is nothing political in this situation. You can read a more detailed explanation in the message “ Uninformed assumptions lead to edits which don't meet Wikipedia standards: Dvorkovich and his patronage”.

In the same message “ Uninformed assumptions lead to edits which don't meet Wikipedia standards: Khodorkovsky and “Proximity to Putin’s regime” I’ve explained in detail why arrest of Khodorkovsky was politically motivated and why arrest of Ziyavudin wasn’t. While Mikhail Khodorkovsky was using his wealth to steer political transformation in Russia and was openly challenging Putin’s authoritarian power, Ziyavudin Magomedov was doing exactly opposite — he was converting his political ties into money.

To name someone’s arrest “politically motivated” you must find any single political activity of this person. In case of Ziyavudin there isn't a single episode in his biography that even remotely resembles political activity.

As I pointed out earlier, the term 'politically motivated circumstances' is overly broad, ambiguous, and, in the case of Ziyavudin Magomedov, misleading. For the clarity and convenience of Wikipedia readers, we need to provide a more precise explanation and employ more specific terminology. Therefore, we should describe his arrest as part of a crackdown on Medvedev’s clan, a viewpoint that is supported by the overwhelming majority of reputable and reliable secondary sources.

P.S. Magomedov’s conflict with Transneft also can’t be used as a “potential political explanation”, because according to most sources it was a pure business conflict. Including the article in the FT which you used in your message. You can read a more detailed explanation in the message “ Uninformed assumptions lead to edits which don't meet Wikipedia standards: Pure Business Conflict with Transneft”.

P.P.S. “You wrote yourself “Independent political analysts acknowledged that the specific charges of 'embezzlement of state funds' during the construction of a soccer World Cup venue in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad against Magomedov were largely unfounded”.

As Vladimir Ashurkov pointed out, “undoubtedly what was happening to the Magomedovs was a selective application of the law”. However, it's crucial not to conflate “selective application of the law” with 'politically motivated circumstances". We have to avoid broad and ambiguous terms and use more precise language. The problem is that Magomedov brothers couldn’t be imprisoned for bribing Dmitry Peskov or for other malpractices because fair prosecution could harm those people who were still in power and enjoyed proximity to Putin. That’s why Russian law enforcement agencies had to invent some strange charges. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 08:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

February 26: Corruption allegations

Dear SpottedSpringer7,

I am addressing point four from your post published on February 7th, concerning "Corruption allegations".

You stated:

“All of these claims remain unevidenced, unverified and have been denied by Magomedov. I would add again that most of the cited sources you use barely mention Magomedov and certainly don’t provide any evidence for the claims”.

However, this is not accurate. Let's consider the case involving the Maltese Falcon yacht. In 2015, anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny accused Putin's longtime spokesman Dmitry Peskov of accepting a bribe to fund the rental of a super-luxury yacht during his honeymoon. Navalny alleged that Ziyavudin Magomedov was the one who paid for the yacht. This does not mean Magomedov was "barely mentioned"; rather, it indicates that he was directly accused of giving a significant bribe of 426 thousand USD to Peskov.

Navalny's evidence was compelling enough for many reputable media outlets to report on the investigation. My error was omitting these secondary sources and publishing only the link to the primary source — Navalny’s blog post. I will address this oversight by incorporating references to reputable secondary sources that have reported on this investigation.

It's important to remember that Alexey Navalny was more than a politician; he was the most respected Russian anti-corruption investigator, known for publishing numerous thorough and well-sourced investigations. His work significantly damaged the reputations of numerous Russian corrupt officials and oligarchs, including Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin himself. The quality of his investigative work is a major reason for his popularity and, tragically, why he was killed in prison by this corrupt authoritarian regime 10 days ago.

Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) was under constant scrutiny by independent media and rival politicians. Over 12 years, they made only a few serious errors in their investigations, each of which led to significant criticism. On one occasion, they even had to retract an investigation. The list of these errors is available in a special section of the Russian Wikipedia article on the ACF, and it's very short. Notably, the investigation concerning Peskov and Magomedov is not listed among these errors.

The "Public figures" section of the Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) guidelines states,

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Given that multiple reliable third-party sources document the allegation, the incident involving the Maltese Falcon is noteworthy and should be included in the article. This section also advises that “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too”. I will include this denial, as it is also presented in several reliable sources.

Regarding Putin’s yacht:

You mentioned that “Most of this section and the cited sources barely cover Magomedov – these stories about Russian elite corruption and have no place in this article. The Business Insider article on Putin’s yacht is 500 words long and refers to Magomedov only once – saying an offshore company allegedly involved “can be linked to Magomedov”. You’ll also see that the Dossier Center article (from is the original source) doesn’t write anything definitively – the whole piece speculates and doesn’t make any explicit claims: “if this is indeed the same company”; “perhaps…”; “may be connected”; “could be..”.

In any case, something which “can be linked to Magomedov” is too tenuous for a biography article and this section gives it undue weight. You should also be careful not to confuse Ziyavudin with his brother Magomed Magomedov.

I once again suggest you look at Wikipedia’s guidance on Biographies (WP: Biographies of a living person) – especially the sections on contentious material and balance”.

First, I reviewed the section on balance, which states: “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone”.

If you carefully review the Dossier Center article, you'll find it is based entirely on investigation materials conducted by law enforcement agencies in several EU states. These agencies investigated a group of Russian oligarchs led by Gennady Timchenko who collected the €583 million needed to construct Putin’s 459ft yacht, Scheherazade. The materials mention two payments of 30 million euros made by the offshore company High Definition.

The Dossier Center checked the company name against the ICIJ Offshore leaks database and found a match with a company owned by Ziyavudin Magomedov. Given the well-documented connections between the Magomedov brothers and Gennady Timchenko, including the unprecedented event in 2021 when Timchenko appeared in court to bail out Magomed Magomedov, it is highly unlikely this was a coincidence involving another offshore company named High Definition owned by a different Russian oligarch.

You also asked me not to confuse Ziyavudin with his brother Magomed Magomedov, “You should also be careful not to confuse Ziyavudin with his brother Magomed Magomedov”.

There is no cause for concern regarding any confusion between them on my part. Even though Magomed may have been closer to Timchenko and potentially negotiated the deal, it was still Ziyavudin who was accused of bribing Putin. This is because, according to the database, the offshore company belonged to Ziyavudin, not Magomed.

You must also keep in mind that the Magomedov brothers were business partners and most likely cooperated on such important matters.

You should also be aware that investigative journalists often use statements like 'may be connected' or 'could be...' because they are neither law enforcement agencies nor courts. Only authorities can confirm with 100% accuracy to whom the company belongs.

Nevertheless, the facts presented by Dossier were significant enough for several reputable sources, including Business Insider and RFE, to publish articles based on the Dossier's investigation. This indicates that the accusations are noteworthy and thus merit inclusion in the Wikipedia article on Ziyavudin.

As with the previous case, I will include more secondary sources to support this information about Scheherazade and High Definition. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 12:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Odlanier2024 on 22 February, 2024

Thank you for your message – you have some fair points which I’ve attempted to better incorporate - please take note of this. But I do think the almost 7000 words that you’ve written here are attempting to obfuscate and confuse the fundamental points that I’ve made (several times) and which you haven't really addressed – namely your edits:

1. Attach undue weight to a series of spurious claims (rather than facts) – especially in the lead section.

The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with “due weight attached” (WP: Lead section – Relative Emphasis). If a previously uninformed reader looks at the lead section as it stood, and in particular just the first 5 paragraphs they will almost certainly be left with the impression that Magomedov is notable only because he was close to Arkady Dvorkovich, was included in the 6000 list, was accused of corruption. They might even be left with the impression that he is close to the Kremlin now – which is self-evidently nonsense (given his imprisonment). I’ll get into to the further problems with some of these claims below, but I’d strongly argue that the “relative emphasis” that you place on them is in error and obviously so, even if I didn’t dispute the claims any further.

For instance, despite including these claims, you don’t mention that Magomedov is imprisoned, and do not mention any Kremlin-led conspiracy against him until the 6th paragraph. Surely this information should be prioritised? I understand well that the lead section should not shy away from controversial topics, but it should also serve as an accessible summary for readers. I’d point you to the Financial Times’ page on Magomedov – compare how Magomedov is characterised/introduced here (and in particular in those articles written after his arrest) to your introduction. All of the reliable links on the first page of Google do not characterise Magomedov as being notable solely, or even primarily, due to his links to Medvedev/Dvorkovich, and certainty don’t convey the impression that this is the only or most pertinent issue in the Magomedov story as your introduction does.

· The lead section is almost 700 words (10 paragraphs) which is far too long. Guidance says “the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic”. Moreover, you go on to repeat much of this information later in the article (which is where it should sit). For example, the point about the Dvorkovich connection might not be worth including in the lead section, but probably should be in the article & that’s why I’ve attempted to integrate it into the “career” section on several occasions now).

· Outside of the lead section, there are also problems when you apply undue weight to stories and claims which only tangentially relate to Magomedov. In the section “Corruption Allegations” you assert (unproven, disputed and contentious) allegations as facts – especially when discussing “Putin’s superyacht”. Again, when you look at these claims in more detail, it soon becomes clear these are unverified and come from “anonymous sources” saying this “can be linked to Timchenko which can be linked to a High Definition which can be linked to Magomedov”. You attribute these qualifications to journalistic style (which you then don’t apply yourself) and argue that:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

I hope you agree my new edits resolve these problems whilst now maintaining your research.

2. Your edits are often not written from a neutral point of view and DO include original research

On several occasions, you slip into a non-neutral tone or fall into original research by reaching conclusions either not stated, misrepresented or taken out of their context in sources. As I wrote earlier:

To be clear, the problems with original research stem from when you take selected quotes from sources out of context and do not present the information factually or objectively: “Sometimes, Magomedov even beat those who offended Dvorkovich”; “his long and close friendship with Arkady Dvorkovich”; “thanks to his connections with Mevevdev’s right-hand man, Magomedov rapidly ascended in status”; “Timchenko, known as one of Vladimir Putin's closest allies, testified in court in support of the detained yacht donors, but this support did not lead to their release”; “closely connected to Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov and Gennady Timchenko”. In all three of these cases, you reach conclusions not explicitly stated in sources OR which aren’t properly contextualised OR hugely exaggerate the case by citing political sources.

3. Your inclusion of irrelevant information/ excessive quotes

·       For the avoidance of doubt, my problem is not with the article’s overall length, but rather with the excessively long lead section and independent sections on topics which do not warrant them. This all links to my points about “due weight” above.

·       The other problem here is the long length of the quotes – which is not standard practice in English Wikipedia (WP: Overuse [of Quotes]) and gives many claims undue weight in what is a biography page. Quotations should not dominate articles, especially biographies – the below is from Wikipedia’s guidance:

1.        Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source

2.        Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working small portions of the quotation into the article text, or both.

I’d therefore argue that you are in error when you write “there's no need to retell it; it's better to add it to the article”. For what it’s worth, the difference in the use of quotes in the Khodorkovsky article you refer to, and your own use of them (deploying long quotes, not properly contextualised, to make a relatively obscure point) is telling. Some examples:

-        Despite their kinship, the brothers turned out to be completely different in nature. The elder is characterized by calmness and prudence, and at the same time, a difficult character, while the younger by empathy but also a hot temper and unwillingness to compromise with business partners. The elder brother believed that it was dangerous to bargain and argue with the state. The younger one was inclined to dispute, even when business partners had significant administrative support from the state. Ziyavudin turned out to be an atypical representative of modern Russian business, a realm with its implicit concepts, codes, and rules, the violation of which is a direct path either to emigration or to prison. And Ziyavudin's inability to reach agreements with individuals close to the state is perhaps another reason why he and his brother found themselves in pre-trial detention.

-        Despite the external harmony of this undoubtedly tactical alliance, the first shareholder conflict between the partners arose almost immediately. The parties had long disputed seats on the management board of NCSP. When Magomedov finally secured the right to operational management of the company, the leadership of Transneft suspected the partner of diverting part of the profits in favor of entities under his control. According to a source in the FSB, the billionaire shifted the center of profit formation to the so-called "pilotage services," which, under contract, performed stevedoring and bunkering work for the port. "Whoever controls management controls profitability. The port's management significantly inflated the expenses for service works, effectively engaging in the outflow of a large amount of money," says the source.

-        At first, the Valdai Club looked like a logical part of the Kremlin’s policy at the time: to charm the West with Putin, his openness and willingness to talk. Moreover, in the first years of the club’s work, Putin was clearly interested in communicating with the guests. However, the backstage life of the Valdai Club was already following the Kremlin’s favourite pattern. Money for the club’s work came from oligarchs and state companies close to the president. At various times, these included Sergei Chemezov, Putin’s KGB colleague and head of Rostec, Ziyavudin Magomedov, a now-disgraced businessman close to former President Dmitry Medvedev, companies of billionaires close to Putin – Alisher Usmanov, Viktor Vekselberg, Alexei Mordashov – as well as banks such as Alfa-Bank and state-owned Vnesheconombank (now VEB. RF) and VTB. Spotted springer7 ( talk) 11:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Addressing Odlainer2024’s comments (where not already addressed above)

1. Restoring the full version of the page

·       You mention the three-revert rule. On every occasion that I’ve made edits, I’ve attempted to integrate the relevant and salvageable edits from your work (including on this occasion). On the other hand, you continue to make no effort to engage with my changes, and substantial points (apart from a single sentence clarifying that Magomedov denied the corruption charges). Please see my message above – you’ll see that I didn’t “arbitrarily delete” anything and have written lengthy and time-consuming messages explaining why I had done so.

·       I’m afraid I don’t agree at all re Arkady Dvorkovich/Medvedev. Your message on February 22 suggests that you think this is a black and white issue which I don’t think is borne out by reliable source material. I agree that Dvorkovich should be referred to in the article (as he has been since January 30) because it is an important interpretation, but as I’ve already explained above this should not be in the lead section, let alone the first paragraph of the article.

You ask that I provide “please provide reliable and reputable sources that support the opposite point of view: that he became a billionaire solely because of his entrepreneurial talent” – this is obscuring the issue. It isn’t incumbent on me to show that a unique “entrepreneurial talent” was crucial because I haven’t made that claim at any stage. I have, however, shown that Magomedov was a wealthy businessman with successful investments across several companies which either a) had nothing to do with the Russian government and b) date well before the accession of Medvedev:  

I’m sure you’ll be aware that Magomedov also separately invested in a number of highly successful western businesses including diamond maker Diamond Foundry, travel booker Peek, and Uber in 2014. The Summa Group also had several successful ventures in Diamant Bank, Interfinance, mining and energy well before 2008.

·       You refer me to Wikipedia’s guidelines on removing content – and argue that “even if you think some of them lack neutrality, Wikipedia guidelines recommend adding balancing”. I agree to an extent and have tried to preserve/edit even more of your research now. But it is also worth noting that guidance (WP: DON'T PRESERVE) says that:

Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Such claims should generally be removed immediately.

2. Size of the Article/ Sections

I think I’ve covered most of this above. For the avoidance of doubt, my problem is not and was never with the size of the article in terms of word length in and of itself, but rather the large quotations, appendices and sections which give undue weight to certain claims which make it difficult for the page to achieve balance. It’s worth repeating – using long quotes and compiling opinions is not standard practice on English language Wikipedia.

You keep referring to Khodorkovsky – I’d invite you to compare his page with your edits and look at the differences in style. Alternatively, if this doesn’t satisfy you, please look at the pages of actually sanctioned oligarchs: Alekperov, Aven, Rotenberg, Guryev, Rashnikov, Melnichenko and even Timchenko.

The level of detail, length of quotes, and undue weight in the Magomedov article, especially in the “Career” and “Proximity to Putin’s regime” sections are clear outliers. None of the pages on these oligarchs who are still close to the Kremlin have anything even remotely close to the addendum dealing with every club membership and every family member’s tangential link to the Russian elite (more on this below). This is despite the fact that Magomedov has been imprisoned by the Kremlin for the last 6 years; the weight and prominence given to this section is therefore a total non-sequitur. It leads the reader with the impression that Magomedov is exceptionally close to the Kremlin when of course the opposite is true (given Magomedov’s current predicament).  

This is before we get into the fact that most of these allegations don’t pertain to Magomedov himself and don’t directly shed any light on his relationship with the Russian elite. You mention:

o   Nikolay Tokarev, referring to an FT piece from 2012. I’m afraid a piece referring to Magomedov’s “forged ties” with Tokarev just isn’t enough to warrant inclusion under a section entitled “Proximity to Putin’s regime” (which has obvious implications). The information is simply out of date –  Magomedov recently filed a lawsuit alleging he played a crucial role in a conspiracy against him. In fact, a much more recent FT piece says the following:

Magomedov is also seeking compensation for the stake in the NCSP port he owned with his brother, which handles Russia’s oil and grain exports from the Black Sea.

He claims Nikolai Tokarev, a former colleague of Putin’s in the KGB who runs state oil pipeline monopoly Transneft, threatened to ensure he would remain in jail unless he sold his stake for $750mn, half of what they had agreed before his arrest.

Granted, this is only Magomedov’s claim in a legal filing, but it still says far more about his relationship with Tokarev than a single line (which in any case doesn’t really say much) from 15 years ago. For the avoidance of doubt, even if this wasn’t the case there would still be problems with the way you just drop the quote in, and also with due-weight. I just don’t think it is relevant enough to warrant inclusion.

o   Vladimir Putin – This section says nothing at all about Magomedov’s relationship with Putin. The quoted passage just isn’t relevant enough to warrant inclusion.

o   Sergey Lavrov – Again, this passage just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. First of all, you aren’t talking about Lavrov but rather his son-in-law, Vinokurov. Secondly, the passage says nothing about Magomedov’s relationship with Vinokurov, let alone Lavrov. Thirdly, the Summa Group employed over 10,000 people and was a huge corporate venture in Russia at the time – I understand that Alexander Vinokurov wasn’t an ordinary employee, but this still says nothing relevant about Ziyavudin’s “proximity” to Putin’s regime.

o   Vladislav Surkov – This is about Magomedov’s wife’s relationship with Surkov’s wife and says nothing about Ziyavudin Magomedov – it isn’t relevant enough to warrant inclusion.

o   Night Hockey League – I don’t doubt the NHL is attended by notable Russian worthies, but this really is tangential and clutching at straws. Firstly, the quotes you use primarily refer to Magomed, not Ziyavudin. In your last message, you seem unconcerned, and argue that the brothers would have been close anyway, but Novaya Gazeta in fact reports:

A few years before the pre-trial detention center, communication between the brothers ceased. According to people around them, Magomed did not like Ziyavudin’s business style. The “divorce” regarding assets drags on. Formally, Magomed remained his brother’s partner, being a shareholder in a number of companies that were part of Summa, but he ceased to have anything to do with managing the general business and did not take part in meetings held by Summa. The brothers' communication on remaining business issues was conducted through lawyers and company employees. In 2012, Magomed and Ziyavudin will stop communicating at all, including seeing each other at family celebrations.

In any case, this section doesn’t actually say anything tangible about Ziyavudin Magomedov’s relationship with the Russian elite, and certainly doesn’t indicate he was especially or notably close to the Putin regime, which is what the title and the prominence given to the section suggests.

This is the problem with giving undue weight to irrelevant information on the biography page of a living person.

3.     Uninformed assumptions lead to edits which don't meet Wikipedia standards

I’ve addressed many of the matters you refer to here in past posts. It’s clear we have a difference in interpretation of what “political” circumstances mean, and on Magomedov’s long-standing and ongoing conflict with (state-owned) Transneft.

I think you have rather misunderstood the point I was trying to make by bringing up Khodorkovsky as a comparison. All I wrote was:

To take your example, you’ll see that Khodorkovsky’s page doesn’t have any of these features and is almost entirely written in chronological form. Despite it being widely accepted that Khodorkovsky had close relationships with Russian elites before his arrest, there is no section on his previous “Proximity to Putin’s Regime”

Of course, Khodorkovsky is a noted political dissident in a way that Magomedov isn’t, but the relevant fact is that Khodorkovsky was a Yeltsin-era oligarch who once had ties to Russia’s elite before he was arrested. I agree with you that his “arrest…rendered any talk of 'Proximity to Putin's regime' in relation to Khodorkovsky almost paradoxical.” Magomedov isn’t an active “dissident” in the same way and in any case this is editorialising to an extent, but surely by your own logic, the same should also apply in this case?

It’s wrong to leave the readers with the impression that Magomedov is close to the Kremlin when there is no evidence he ever was, and given he has been arrested by the Russian state.

Novaya Gazeta in fact makes a very similar comparison between Magomedov and YUKOS: “Their fate is vaguely reminiscent of the history of the YUKOS company - with the only difference that 15-18 years ago, a business that fell into disgrace in Russia was charged exclusively with economic charges: taxes, laundering, theft. And entrepreneurs were imprisoned in general regime colonies. Today, Article 210, cleverly imputed to business, doubles people’s sentences and provides for an extremely strict regime. The case of the Magomedov brothers seems to end much sadder than all other entrepreneurial cases in the modern history of Russia.”

4.     Politically motivated circumstances

I’m afraid your response just underscores the points I was making about a neutral point of view. If Magomedov was removed from power as a result of “elite infighting” – that is almost the textbook definition of political circumstances – defined on Wikipedia as “the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status”.

Now let’s see what the Financial Times wrote following his arrest:

Some analysts and political consultants described Mr Magomedov’s arrest as a sign that Igor Sechin, the chief executive of state oil company Rosneft, may be lobbying for Mr Medvedev’s job. Although the prime minister is not particularly powerful, he is the default successor should anything happen to the president.

Does this not meet the definition above? Moreover, even if I were to adopt the interpretation you offer of “competing Kremlin clans” – would that not meet the definition above?

The label “political” has also been referred to in articles by the Lawyer, Law 360 and others.

I appreciate there is a difference between speaking out explicitly on the basis of a political ideology and this case, but I think it’s fair to label an imprisonment without trial (initially) by an undemocratic regime following a conflict with the state-owned transport company over Black Sea ports as political. The English High Court also recently found that Magomedov had a “ good, arguable case” against Transneft in respect of his claim alleging a state-led (political) conspiracy to seize his assets. Spotted springer7 ( talk) 12:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 11:00, 4 March 2024

Dear SpottedSpringer7, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlanier2024 ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I find it necessary to once again restore the full version of the page, citing the same reason as before: the arbitrary deletion of 28K symbols of meticulously researched edits, which was again done in a single update.

Once again, I urge you to carefully re-read my message titled " February 22, 2024: Restoring the full version of the page" and subsequently adopt a more collaborative approach to editing this page.

Please pay special attention to these parts:

“If you carefully study the revision history of this page, you will find that you are the person who started this (reverting) process at 11:33, January 25, 2024‎. You have been constantly reverting the contributions of another editor, and you’ve already done it four times.

I need to clarify that I haven’t deleted any of your contributions or those of other editors. I modified some contributions to better reflect the content of the source, doing so carefully and with respect. I updated other editors' input sentence by sentence and explained each change in the related edit summary. I never arbitrarily deleted large chunks of others' work, especially without proper explanation.

When I restore my meticulously researched contributions, I'm not violating Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration, whereas your repeated attempts to delete my work are hardly in line with certain Wikipedia rules”.

“I once again kindly ask you to refrain from the practice of deleting substantial fragments of other people's contributions. Please make each edit separately and provide explanations for each update. This is a matter of respect towards other editors of the page.

Also, for the spirit of collaboration, please follow Wikipedia rules and stop deleting sourced contributions, but balance them with your own input”.

I'm ready to address your comments, but only if they are made in a collaborative manner.

I haven’t seen any contributions from you to this page in recent months because your edits don't seem to add content. Instead, their primary purpose appears to be to remove my contributions and then gradually agree to retain larger and larger parts of my edits as I demonstrate that they are based on reliable and reputable sources.

We could have avoided this inconvenient process if you had looked more carefully at the rationale for each specific edit. For example, before deleting, you should verify whether the particular contribution you're unhappy with is based on a reputable source. If you discover that it is indeed based on a reputable and reliable source, you need to refrain from deleting it. It's as simple as that.

I still can't see any of your attempts to balance information which you have repeatedly tried to delete, with edits of your own that convey an alternative point of view and are based on reputable sources.

Removing large chunks of text based on reliable sources is not a constructive way to edit an article. Therefore, I once again ask you to change your approach before we can engage in a meaningful conversation.

P.S. You wrote:

“Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Such claims should generally be removed immediately”.

The main issue with your "contributions" is that you don’t delete "unsourced or poorly sourced claims." Instead, you repeatedly delete well-sourced information, which represents the overwhelming majority of reputable and reliable secondary sources. The proof of such behavior is evident in the edit history of this article. That's why I once again ask you to make separate edits so we can discuss the reliability of the sources for each claim you want to delete. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 07:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modifications performed by Spotted springer7 on March 7

Dear Spotted springer7,

In your explanation of the edit made at 15:07 on March 7, 2024, you wrote, "Acknowledge Odlainer's point on editing the whole page at once."

Unfortunately, your modifications of the article on that date showed a preference for form over substance. You deleted five large portions of information, providing a misleading explanation.

Regrettably, I have to restore deleted information. Once again, I ask you to edit each piece of information separately (each sentence, each quote, etc.) and then provide an explanation for why you made the edit, just as I did with other editors' work.

In the messages below, I'll explain why exactly your explanations were misleading. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 17:22, 7 March 2024

Dear Spotted springer7,

I regret to inform you that I have had to restore the information that was deleted by your edit, as the explanation provided was misleading. You stated, "Re-adapted excessively long quotes and non-neutral/editorializing language as explained on the Talk Page." However, your changes went beyond simply re-adapting quotes and language. You have, once again, deleted more than 8,000 characters of fact-based information. For example, you removed a crucial subsection covering Ziyavudin Magomedov's 4th place in Forbes' "The Kings Of State Contracts" ranking, as well as his departure from the ranking in 2016.

It is essential to revisit my message regarding the Forbes ranking "The Kings Of State Contracts," which explains the significance of this ranking in understanding the nature of wealth of certain Russian oligarchs. Please refrain from depriving Wikipedia readers of this important information, which is based on reliable and reputable secondary sources.

The same issue arises with the quotes. You claim to have "re-adapted excessively long quotes," but this phrasing seems to be a guise for deleting information that is not favorable to Ziyavudin Magomedov. For instance, the full version of the article contains a paragraph about industries overseen by Arkady Dvorkovich, comprising a statement and two supporting quotes.

---

“Media and analysts associated Magomedov’s success with the role of Arkady Dvorkovich, who, as an assistant and then deputy to Medvedev, oversaw the fuel and energy complex, industry, agriculture and transport — the main sectors in which Summa was one way or another present.

Ziyavudin once studied in the same course at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University together with Medvedev’s longtime ally and assistant Arkady Dvorkovich. The friendship remained for many years. Dvorkovich, being Medvedev's deputy, oversaw the fuel and energy complex, industry, agriculture and transport — the main sectors in which Summa was one way or another present.

Novaya Gazeta, "Summozakluchenie", 2022

The Magomedovs’ largest customers were the structures of the Ministry of Transport, which was supervised by Dvorkovich. The amount of such contracts for 2012–2015 exceeded 120 billion rubles (approx. $4 billion by average exchange rate).

Forbes Russia magazine, "Family Affairs. How the Magomedov Brothers Built Their Business and the Consequences of Their Dispute", 2018“

---

In your explanation, you claimed that the quotations were "excessively long," but upon closer examination, you'll notice that both quotes are relatively short, each comprising just two sentences. These quotes provide essential information that Summa was earning money in industries supervised by Arkady Dvorkovich. The first quote lists a set of industries, while the second specifies that "The Magomedovs' largest customers were the structures of the Ministry of Transport, which was supervised by Dvorkovich." This quote also details the amount of contracts within a specific period, amounting to "exceeded 120 billion rubles."

The information in both quotes constitutes important facts that describe Magomedov's business. Furthermore, both quotes are sourced from reputable and reliable media outlets: Forbes and Novaya Gazeta.

Let's examine how you "re-adapted" these quotes:

"Forbes' Russia magazine has suggested that one potential explanation for the Summa Group's success is the expansion of the Ministry of Transport's contracts during this period - these 'exceeded 120 billion rubles (approx. $4 billion by average exchange rate)' for 2012-2015."

In this version, we are missing the crucial detail that structures of the Ministry of Transport were the largest customers of Summa. Additionally, it omits that the Ministry of Transport was supervised by Dvorkovich. These are two very important nuances that must remain in the article.

Furthermore, your edit removed all mentions of the "Medvedev's clan," although it is a generally accepted term found in almost all reliable sources that covered Magomedov's arrest.

The same applies to quotes from reliable and reputable sources, which state that Magomedov and Summa were involved in failing projects in Russia. These were mentioned in FT, Novaya Gazeta, and Sobesednik. For some reason, you preferred to delete these quotes without attempting to "re-adapt" this information. Perhaps because it undermines the "politically motivated" narrative.

All of the above once again proves that edits must be done separately. You must refrain from deleting large pieces of fact-based information without providing a proper explanation. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 16:33, 7 March 2024

Dear Spotted springer7,

I regret to inform you that I had to restore the "Political Stance" subsection because it appears that you have once again removed important information that is supported by reliable and reputable sources.

In your explanation for this edit, you wrote: "None of the claims made here are about a 'political stance' per se. I'd also question their relevance and due weight, as well as the long quotation dropped in (see my Talk Page message). The ACF claims are covered in the 'Corruption Allegations' section."

Information about Ziyavudin's trial with Alexey Navalny should be retained in the article. The quote from the Financial Times, which describes that Ziyavudin won this trial on a rather ridiculous technicality stating that Navalny's blog was anonymous, is particularly important. It demonstrates that Magomedov was close to power and was able to manipulate the court. We can't omit such information, especially when it's derived from one of the most credible business publications in the world.

You must distinguish information about the trial with Navalny from the ACF’s investigation into Magomedov financing Peskov’s yacht. This information could be moved to the "Corruption Allegations" section, but in my opinion, it is more useful in this section because it elucidates Ziyavudin’s relations with people and institutions that criticized Putin’s corrupt regime. However, this information certainly cannot be removed from the article.

The same goes for the quotation from Vladimir Ashurkov, who is one of the most prominent members of the ACF, which is the key Russian anti-corruption organization. This quote helps readers assess the real nature of Ziyavudin Magomedov's arrest. It's very important to retain this quote so readers can distinguish Magomedov's arrest from the imprisonment of individuals like Alexey Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Lilya Chanysheva, and hundreds of others who were persecuted for their political stance. If you remove this quote, as well as Alexey Navalny's quote, and simply retain the phrase "politically motivated circumstances," the article becomes misleading. That's why it's crucial to keep both of these quotes in the article. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 16:25, 7 March 2024

Dear Spotted springer7,

I must restore the information based on the sources cited in the "Corruption allegations" section.

You deleted the phrase "which 'tracks the criminal activity of various people associated with the Kremlin.'" This is a direct quote from a Business Insider article cited in this section. It serves as an explanation of the Dossier Center's specialization. This information is important for Wikipedia readers and should be retained.

You referred to "an 'unnamed source.'" This is a false claim, as the Dossier Center states:

"This information is contained in the materials of a joint investigation conducted by law enforcement agencies of Spain, Italy, Germany, and Finland; a copy of the materials is in the possession of the Dossier Center."

You wrote, "Magomedov has strongly denied any involvement." However, the link to the Daily Mail that you provided does not contain a denial of the Dossier's information. It only contains a denial of ACF's claims about the Maltese Falcon.

You used this denial in the Maltese Falcon subsection, but I must remind you that The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable and reputable source by Wikipedia. Therefore, this Wikipedia article should contain a denial made by Ziyavudin Magomedov himself in a comment to the Financial Times rather than a denial made by his spokesperson to the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is not a trusted source, so we cannot verify whether this comment was ever made.

You removed the following phrase, claiming it was my original research. It is not. I will provide a reputable secondary source that contains this exact statement:

"Despite this fact Magomedov and his ex-senator brother Magomed Magomedov were arrested. Even after Putin reportedly received the yacht, they remained behind bars, awaiting trial. In 2021, Timchenko, known as one of Vladimir Putin's closest allies, testified in court in support of the detained yacht donors, but this support did not lead to their release."

This paragraph should also be restored.

I urge you once again to carefully review the sources on which the article is based before editing it. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 15:34, 7 March 2024

Dear Spotted springer7,

I regret to inform you that I had to restore the "Proximity to Putin's Regime" section because it appears that you have once again removed a large portion of important information that is supported by reliable and reputable sources.

I've already explained why it is important to keep the information about Ziyavudin's sponsorship of the Night Hockey League, as well as the Magomedov brothers' connections to Gennady Timchenko. This information is supported by multiple reliable secondary sources, so it must be included in the article. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 15:30, 7 March 2024

Dear Spotted springer7,

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the quote is excessive. On the contrary, it provides a precise description of the nature of the relationship between Magomedov and Dvorkovich. Moreover, it demonstrates how Ziyavudin's combative nature, evident from his youth, eventually led to multiple business conflicts during Summa's downfall between 2013 and 2018. This aspect of Ziyavudin's character is supported by numerous reliable and reputable sources, indicating that it is a crucial element to be reflected in the article. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Spotted springer7 at 15:07, 7 March 2024

Dear Spotted springer7,

I must once again remind you that the claim that Ziyavudin Magomedov "was arrested under politically motivated circumstances" cannot be verified by any reputable and reliable secondary sources. Verifiability (WP:V) is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and we must adhere to it.

Therefore, I am compelled to restore the first paragraph with information that is supported by such sources. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Modification performed by Odlanier2024 on 14 March and suggested Dispute Resolution

Dear Odlainer2024,

I fear we’re talking past each other at this point, and I’d therefore suggest we try to resolve the argument on the Dispute Resolution Notice Board, at least in the first instance. I don’t think your characterisation of my edits as “misleading” is particularly fair – I made several edits on each section as you requested and have explained the reasons for doing so on several messages here.

I fear you have either misunderstood my points about due weight or we just disagree irreconcilably on this matter – making individual edits to “every sentence” doesn’t make sense because the problems are holistic. As I’ve said above on several occasions, this essentially boils down to the following:

1.     The lead section is too long, contrary to Wikipedia’s guidance and gives undue weight to several claims whilst pushing down key information. For instance, the fact that Magomedov is imprisoned by the Russian state wasn't mentioned until the sixth paragraph (I won’t unnecessarily repeat myself, but more about the problems here are clearly signposted in the messages above).

2.     The page in general gives undue weight to certain points, and in particular, presents readers with a misleading impression of Magomedov’s proximity to Putin's regime (again I clearly set out why this is the case above, particularly in the message, “Size of the Article/ Sections” where i go through every individual claim you refer to).

3.     Quotes, across the page, are excessively long which is contrary to Wikipedia’s guidance (again it would be silly for me to repeat myself but please see above)

I really thought my last set of edits represented a reasonable compromise in which many of your initial edits/sources were integrated into the article, but in a manner which resolved the problems above. Why not build on the page as it now stands, rather than needlessly reverting the page? In doing so most recently you removed some additional (and I’d think non-contentious) material about Magomedov’s current location and educational background.

I’ve restored the page to how it stood on 7 March, but once again integrated many of the individual issues you flagged in your last message. I’m sure we can address the few outstanding issues in mediation. But for the avoidance of doubt, there are clear problems with your most recent explanations for “reverting the page”:

·       Discussing my 15:06 edit on the lead section you completely ignore the points about the length of the lead section and certain points being given “undue weight”. My edits retained the word “oligarch” which you insisted on, mentioned the Dvorkovich connection, and retained the alternate explanations for Magomedov’s arrest whilst reducing the lead section down to 4 paragraphs in line with Wikipedia's guidance. Given your only point here was about the “politically motivated circumstances” quote – surely you could just delete the single sentence – and we could discuss it accordingly?

·       Discussing my 15:30 edit, you write:

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the quote is excessive. On the contrary, it provides a precise description of the nature of the relationship between Magomedov and Dvorkovich. Moreover, it demonstrates how Ziyavudin's combative nature, evident from his youth, eventually led to multiple business conflicts during Summa's downfall between 2013 and 2018. This aspect of Ziyavudin's character is supported by numerous reliable and reputable sources, indicating that it is a crucial element to be reflected in the article.

I don’t agree at all. My edit did three things:

o   Remove the line “Sometimes, Magomedov even beat those who offended Dvorkovich” which is phrased as an objective fact when, in fact, it is a (direct) quote from an anonymous source (and clearly signposted as such) by the Novaya Gazeta article.

o   Summarised the nine-line NG quote, which I’m afraid was excessive (again, I refer you to Wikipedia’s guidance on quotes – see above if this isn’t clear)

o   Added a source for Magomedov’s PhD which was also inexplicably deleted.

·       Discussing my edit at 15:34, you ignore my explanation for removing the “Proximity to Putin’s regime” section (set out extensively in “Addressing Odlainer2024’s comments/Size of the Article”). I agree that Timchenko should remain – but to be clear you make two claims about Timchenko’s relationship with Ziyavudin Magomedov in this section:

1.     That he helped collect the $583 million to construct the Scheherazade

2.     That he spoke out for the brothers, and especially Magomed during their trial

Both of these claims were included in the article in my very next edit which occurred at 16:25 which is why I wrote, “Moved the mention of GT to a more appropriate area of the article.”

·       Discussing my edit at 16:25, You write:

You removed the following phrase, claiming it was my original research. It is not. I will provide a reputable secondary source that contains this exact statement:

"Despite this fact Magomedov and his ex-senator brother Magomed Magomedov were arrested. Even after Putin reportedly received the yacht, they remained behind bars, awaiting trial. In 2021, Timchenko, known as one of Vladimir Putin's closest allies, testified in court in support of the detained yacht donors, but this support did not lead to their release."

I didn’t remove it from the article – I added it to the “Arrest and Imprisonment” section. This section covers their trial, so it makes sense that it should sit here. I also made additional edits to this section which you didn’t acknowledge.

You are also just wrong to state the Daily Mail/MSN piece didn’t include a denial of the Dossier Center’s claim. In fact, it states: “When asked about his contribution to Putin's yacht, a spokesperson for Magomedov said: 'This allegation is strongly refuted. We regard it as a lie designed by his many political and commercial adversaries to damage Mr Magomedov's reputation in the West”.

I don’t think the quote, you use to describe the Dossier Center “which tracks the criminal activity of various people associated with the Kremlin” is really important to readers given the obvious context, but in the spirit of collaboration, I’ve added it in.

·       Discussing my edit at 16:33. We can perhaps deal with this section in mediation – my main point is that this says nothing about Magomedov’s “political stance”, and having a sole section, with a very long quote, gives the issue disproportionate weight in Magomedov’s biography. I’ve summarised the passage about the Magomedov/Anti Corruption Foundation legal dispute in the “Corruption Allegations” section, which is the logical place for this to sit.

·       Discussing my edit at 17:22, you claim my “edits” were misleading. I completely disagree – there was clear editorialising language which I removed without changing too much of the content. I’ve given you several references in earlier messages but again, how can you claim that the following sentences are written with a neutral tone of voice?

o   “In 2006, Magomedov's Summa, which had no prior experience in the telecommunications market, unexpectedly obtained a federal license to offer wireless Internet access services using the WiMAX standard”.

o   “Thanks to his connections with Medvedev’s right-hand man, Magomedov rapidly ascended in status.”

o   “Magomedov toiled on the margins of Russian business until Dmitry Medvedev became Vladimir Putin’s place-holder president.”

I’ve now added in references to the so-called “Medvedev clan” and also the Forbes ranking, but for the reasons already outlined this habit of using long quotes to re-iterate points which have already been made, should be avoided. We don’t need a compilation or appendix of everything ever said about Magomedov in sources (Wikipedia’s guidance is clear on this – see my message above on due weight).

Finally, you claim that I removed “crucial detail that structures of the Ministry of Transport were the largest customers of Summa. Additionally, it omits that the Ministry of Transport was supervised by Dvorkovich. These are two very important nuances that must remain in the article”.

This is just untrue – both of these points are made clear in the following passage:

Some analysts have associated Magomedov’s success with the role of his university friend Arkady Dvorkovich, who, as an assistant and then deputy to Medvedev, oversaw the fuel and energy complex, industry, agriculture and transport — the main sectors in which Summa was in one way or another present. Spotted springer7 ( talk) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Dispute Resolution

Further to the message above, please see the following link.

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ziyavudin_Magomedov_discussion Spotted springer7 ( talk) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

3O Response:  Not done, please try actually talking to each other, preferably within the same section, with responses of 500 words or less. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi AirshipJungleman29,

Regrettably, for several months now, the user Spotted Springer7 has persistently removed contributions I've made to the article, even though my edits are grounded entirely in reputable and reliable secondary sources.

This user continues to delete these contributions despite the article remaining within the recommended size and despite Wikipedia’s guidelines which discourage the removal of information that is substantiated by reputable and reliable sources.

While I could simply reinstate my contributions following each deletion, especially given that this editor seems to lack expertise in the subject matter of the article, I prefer not to engage in an edit war. In keeping with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, I am prepared to engage in detailed discussions to justify the inclusion of each fact on the page.

However, it is challenging to condense my explanations into 500 words or less when Spotted Springer7 is removing between 25,000 to 50,000 characters of my input each time. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 15:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Dear Spotted springer7,

I feel compelled to restore the full version of the article once again, particularly because of the significant details you omitted in your 35 edits on April 10, 2024. Many of these deletions are critical for Wikipedia readers to fully understand the life of Ziyavudin Magomedov, specifically regarding the wealth and status he acquired between 2008-2012. Notably, the omitted details concerning his interactions with Russian elites from 2008 to 2018 are essential for a comprehensive understanding. I will address the reasons for your consistent removal of these important facts over the past several months in subsequent messages.

Below is a list of some of the most significant exclusions:

1.     For some reason, you have once again omitted an important fact: in 2012, Summa secured the fourth position in the Forbes ranking titled "The Kings Of State Contracts." Interestingly, you retained the information that by 2016, Summa was no longer in the ranking, included in the "Downfall" subsection. This selective editing clearly demonstrates a bias, as the first fact illustrates Magomedov's proximity to the Kremlin at the time, while the second suggests a rising conflict with the authorities.

2.     In the subsection dedicated to the NCSP deal, you removed all mentions of the accusations against Summa of collusion with Transneft. These accusations have been reported by multiple sources within the investment community and covered by the Financial Times. The same accusations were made by Alexey Navalny.

I understand that Ziyavudin Magomedov has now filed a lawsuit against Transneft, and any information suggesting that he colluded with this state-controlled oil pipeline monopoly to acquire the biggest port in Russia without investing his own funds could potentially undermine his narrative in court. However, this is Wikipedia, not a court document, so our article should include all significant information supported by reliable and reputable secondary sources. Therefore, the information about Transneft's involvement in the deal should remain.

3.     It's striking how you consistently attempt to delete any mention of Ziyavudin Magomedov being arrested, detained, tried, and convicted alongside his brother, Magomed, who was also his business partner. I understand the inclination to omit references to Magomed, especially given his role in government relations and his close friendship with Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, who is now considered a war criminal responsible for the bloodiest and most destructive war in Europe since World War II.

Magomed also played hockey with Vladimir Putin in the Night Hockey League, which you refer to as a “minor sports league.” It is well-known that Putin, a dictator noted for his paranoia and obsession with personal safety, only allows those he trusts deeply to share the ice with him. For many years Magomed was one of those individuals, right up until his and Ziyavudin’s arrest in 2018.

Let me also point out some inconsistencies in your article. After I repeatedly highlighted that Gennady Timchenko, a close friend of Putin and one of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs, testified in court supporting the Magomedov brothers—a fact covered by most reputable sources—you were compelled to include this information. However, in your version of the article, Magomed appears abruptly. You seem to introduce him solely to include the following statement: During their trial, Russian oligarch Gennady Timchenko, testified in court in support of the Magomedov brothers, and in particular for Magomed Magomedov. You suggest that Timchenko's testimony favored Magomed over Ziyavudin. However, the problem with your deliberately trimmed version of the article is that it leaves readers wondering: How did Magomed end up in court?

Additionally, on several occasions on the Talk page, you mentioned that “the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with “due weight attached”. Careful review of reputable sources covering Ziyavudin’s arrest reveals that each and every one of them report his arrest alongside his brother, Magomed. Therefore, if we aim to provide a balanced account of Ziyavudin Magomedov's life, it is crucial that this fact is included in the lead section.

4.     You have consistently omitted the fact that Ziyavudin, Magomed, NCSP, and Summa were sponsors of Putin’s Night Hockey League, a detail that is considered significant by leading Russian and international media, including the Financial Times.

5.     The same issue arises with the omission of their sponsorship of the Russian Geographical Society.

6.     You also consistently remove the fact that Ziyavudin Magomedov was involved in a legal dispute with Alexey Navalny. This removal obscures the evidence that Magomedov was close to Russian power structures and was capable of influencing the judiciary.

These are just a few of the important facts reported by multiple reliable and reputable secondary sources that you have deliberately removed from the article. The omission of such facts necessitates that I restore a more complete and balanced version of the article. Wikipedia readers deserve access to comprehensive information based on reputable and reliable sources, and it is our duty as Wikipedia editors to provide them with this access.

I will address your other edits in subsequent messages over the next few hours. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ziyavudin Magomedov: Wikipedia

Dear Odlanier2024,

I profoundly disagree with your last message, and your explanations for continuing to just revert the page without engaging. Some of what you wrote about my edits is simply factually untrue – and suggests that you didn’t even properly read the article before reverting.

I’ll expand on this below, but because you claim I’m acting with “bias”, it’s first worth noting some facts:

·       Out of the original 50,00+ bytes of edits, well more than half are now integrated into the page. Because I’ve cut down and summarised excessive quotations which take up a disproportionate number of bytes, this means that in reality the vast majority of your substantial original edits now sit on the page.

·       This is because I recognise a) the need to compromise and b) I have actually engaged with your edits. I’m not biased or acting in bad faith here.

·       After several long Talk page exchanges (which I admit probably could have been avoided), you asked me to make separate edits which could be discussed individually, on a case-by-case basis and to “engage in a meaningful conversation”.

·       I was reluctant to do this because many of my problems with your edits were about the page, or at least sections, taken holistically. For instance, the length of the lead section, the excessive length of quotes throughout the page, and “undue weight” where you detail tangential and oblique links between Magomedov and the Russian elite.

·       However, in an attempt to move the discussion on and act collaboratively, I made 35 individual edits. Again, many of these were just summarising extremely long quotes (in line with Wikipedia’s guidance). It’s worth reiterating that most of your substantial edits were retained. It cannot be the case that you disagree with each and every edit I made – especially since you previously wrote, “some of your claims seem reasonable to me”.

So why don’t you now discuss my edits individually and collaboratively rather than just reverting the page back? I think if you read the page more closely you’d find that all of the points and references you provided about Magomedov’s acquisition of wealth are, in fact, in the article.

To take your points in turn, however:

1. The Kings Of State Contracts – Your argument here is just factually wrong. I’d urge you to read the page more closely. The Forbes “Kings of State Contracts” was not omitted or obscured – the page literally read as:  

The group secured a stake of 50 percent minus one share in the United Grain Company, the state trader, for $186 million in the new government's first sell-off in May 2012. During that year, Forbes' Russia ranked Summa Group fourth as part of its 'Kings of government contracts’ special report, which was based on official government data analyzing the winners of state tenders.

2. Transneft/NCSP – I didn’t remove all mentions of the controversy around the Summa Group’s acquisition of NSCP, instead I summarised the quotes from the Financial Times and Navalny. Again, the page read as:

Summa was accused of purchasing NCSP using the port's own funds. The Financial Times has suggested that the deal did not technically cost Summa anything but cost the London-traded Novorossiysk port group $2.1bn but Magomedov was quoted in the Financial Times at the time saying "everything we made we built with our own hands".

Prominent anti-corruption activist, Russian opposition leader, and political prisoner Alexey Navalny was also critical of the sequence of transactions involving the Primorsk Trade Port and NCSP.

3. Magomed Magomedov – I’ve not deliberately tried to delete mentions of Magomed Magomedov at all. However, it is important to note couple of points here:

i)               That all sources concur that when Timchenko spoke out at the trial, he primarily did so for Magomed Magomedov specifically.

ii)              Several independent media sources, including those that you have cited yourself, have highlighted that the brothers fell out, and essentially “divorced” before their arrest, having little to do with each other’s dealings.

Therefore, to point out every small and tangential link that Magomed M had to the “Putin regime” on the page of Ziyavudin M is misleading. There are no sources which suggest that Ziyavudin was close to Putin, and to include the section “Proximity to Putin’s regime” is to grant minor references/irrelevant information undue weight.

For example, I think it’s obvious that connecting Magomed Magomedov’s position on the “Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society” to “Ziyavudin’s Proximity to the Putin” in the way you do is ridiculous.

I note that you didn’t refer to the points I made about Lavrov, Peskov, Surkov and Tokarev in your last message, but nonetheless reverted the page. Spotted springer7 ( talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Dear Spotted Springer7,

I am writing to explain why I must restore the full version of the article and to address your recent claims.

You mentioned, "Out of the original 50,00+ bytes of edits, well more than half are now integrated into the page. Because I’ve cut down and summarised excessive quotations which take up a disproportionate number of bytes, this means that in reality the vast majority of your substantial original edits now sit on the page."

I need to remind you that it is primarily your actions that have involved deleting my contributions to this article. I have not removed any of your contributions or those from other editors.

I previously addressed this issue on February 22, 2024:

“On January 25, you deleted 50K symbols of my edits, which were entirely based on reputable and reliable sources. You even labeled them as vandalism. After I repeatedly pointed out that my edits were supported by multiple links to reputable international and Russian sources such as FT, WSJ, Novaya Gazeta, Meduza, etc., you reluctantly incorporated 16K of my contributions into the previous version of the page. However, this version lacks reliable sources in many paragraphs, especially the first one.

I need to clarify that I haven’t deleted any of your contributions or those of other editors. I modified some contributions to better reflect the content of the source, doing so carefully and with respect. I updated other editors' input sentence by sentence and explained each change in the related edit summary. I never arbitrarily deleted large chunks of others' work, especially without proper explanation”.

And again, on March 4, 2024:

“I haven’t seen any contributions from you to this page in recent months because your edits don't seem to add content. Instead, their primary purpose appears to be to remove my contributions and then gradually agree to retain larger and larger parts of my edits as I demonstrate that they are based on reliable and reputable sources.

We could have avoided this inconvenient process if you had looked more carefully at the rationale for each specific edit. For example, before deleting, you should verify whether the particular contribution you're unhappy with is based on a reputable source. If you discover that it is indeed based on a reputable and reliable source, you need to refrain from deleting it. It's as simple as that.

I still can't see any of your attempts to balance information which you have repeatedly tried to delete, with edits of your own that convey an alternative point of view and are based on reputable sources.

Removing large chunks of text based on reliable sources is not a constructive way to edit an article. Therefore, I once again ask you to change your approach before we can engage in a meaningful conversation”.

While I acknowledge your effort in making 35 separate edits, I must express my concern that you have prioritized form over substance. Initially, you reverted the article to a significantly condensed version. In this process, particularly in the first paragraph, you once again failed to verify whether your assertions about "politically motivated circumstances" and "unfounded charges" were substantiated by the sources you cited.

Regrettably, your claim that you were "just summarizing extremely long quotes" does not hold up. A prime example is your “summarization” of quotations from the Financial Times and Alexey Navalny regarding the NCSP deal.

You stated, "I didn’t remove all mentions of the controversy around the Summa Group’s acquisition of NCSP, instead I summarized the quotes from the Financial Times and Navalny."

However, these two sources collectively mention Transneft five times. How, then, does your summary completely omit any reference to Transneft? This omission calls into question the accuracy and integrity of your summary.

You have not adequately explained why you consistently delete any mention of Ziyavudin Magomedov being arrested, detained, tried, and convicted alongside his brother, Magomed, who is also his business partner. This fact is consistently reported by both reputable international and Russian media in every article covering Ziyavudin’s arrest. Why does an obscure anonymous Wikipedia editor decide that this fact is not important, while the most reputable and competent journalists have simultaneously determined that it is? This discrepancy lacks any rational explanation.

“So why don’t you now discuss my edits individually and collaboratively rather than just reverting the page back? I think if you read the page more closely you’d find that all of the points and references you provided about Magomedov’s acquisition of wealth are, in fact, in the article”.

As this is not my full-time job, it will take some time to address each of your comments. However, since you are intentionally omitting many important facts, I feel compelled to preserve the full version of the article until I have responded to those comments. As long as the article remains below Wikipedia's recommended size limit, it is better to provide readers with more, rather than fewer, facts and details about Ziyavudin Magomedov’s life. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The previous version of the article contained a misleading statement:

"He is incarcerated in Lefortovo Prison, which the Federal Security Service uses as a maximum-security prison for political prisoners and other important detainees."

However, the source from the Financial Times provided different information: "They remain in Moscow's infamous Lefortovo prison, which the FSB security service uses for defendants in the Russian political elite, pending appeal."

It is important to clarify that Lefortovo prison is primarily used for detaining corrupt officials, including oligarchs, ministers, and senators, some of whom have been charged with contracting murders, rather than for recognized political prisoners.

For example, Alexey Navalny was held in "Matrosskaya Tishina"; Vladimir Kara-Murza was detained in "Vodnik"; and Ilya Yashin was in "SIZO #4 Medved." A comprehensive list of detentions of political prisoners, demonstrating they are not typically held in Lefortovo, can be verified here: Novaya Gazeta article on prisoner detentions. Odlanier2024 ( talk) 11:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply