"

Definitely his views contradict the current principles of Wikipedia. I don't think his intention is to comply with them. If no one expresses dissatisfaction and advocates change, there would be no improvement.

On the other hand there are users who are abusing the system covertly, like user Zoe and user Mikkalai. User Zoe is using Wikipedia to torture people by artificially finding fault in people's contributions. If she is not sufering from Sadistic Personality Disorder, why doesn't she make contributions herself? What's there in it for her? 

User Mikkalai's point of view is not neutral. User Mikkalai from Belarussia (an area notorious for right wing tendencies) who is behind the current edition of the Intelligentsia article seems to have a political has reconstructionist, zarist, and nationalistic bias and his edits distort the truth through omission, taking things out of context, and other tools of propoganda. For some reason he stops on pre-revolution Russia, as if there was no further developments after that? Is that neutral?  

The important role intelligentsia played during the Soviet epoch (70 years of history) is understated if not absent from the article. There is no explanation of the role Jewish intelligents played in the revolution, and why many Jewish intelligents joined the revolution (pogroms and cherta osedlosti) is not mentioned. He is quoting Lenin as calling Intelligents ""the shit of the nation"", while he does not mention that Lenin and Trotsky were intelligents themselves. 

The attribute of a cosmopolitan is not mentioned either, obviously because it is associated with Jews. 

He listed for deletion about Abram Kamensky, under the pretext of not being notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Abram Kamensky was mentioned in Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a printed encyclopedia compiled by international experts. How is it that this person is not notable enough to be mentioned in an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone? 
This person was mentioned in a Solzhenitsin's novel, he was a deputy minister of the ministry of national affairs, one of the first people to join the bolshevik party, as mentioned in the debate involved in the founding of the short-lived Donetsko-Krivorogian Soviet Republic,  father of a well-known russian art critic. This is enough to make him notable. The reason he was demoted to a lower post was because he was briefly a member of the Trostkyst opposition, which Stalin didn't forgive him for. At any rate, the argument that he was somewhat obscure by the time of his death does not hold water, because many people who were famous died in obscurity.

The point is, user Mikkalai from Belorussia does not possess a thorough enough knowledge of Soviet history to make that judgement. The reason he listed the article for deletion was personal and political bias. 

I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was so people could add research and facts to someone's start-up. Not to list every start-up that is perhaps not well researched enough for deletion.

User Mikkalai even listed Aleksander Kamensky article for deletion for reason of non-notability  one of the most well known art crtitics in later twentieth century Russia, and an internationally recognized expert on Marc Chagall, whose book Marc Chagall, The Russian Years was an international best-seller, and was postthamously reprinted and presented at the Tretiakov gallery with Marc Chagall's granddaughters in attendance. What do you think, this guy knows what he is talking about?

He has vandalized Aleksander Kamensky article. He took out Kamensky's definition of the stern style that was one of the three quotes from one of his books, translated personally by LevKamensky for the article. While in the articles discussion page he requested stern style to be defined. This shows that he deleted it without even reading it. If that is not vandalism, than what is? This is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I suggest reverting the article to LevKamensky's last edition and blocking it from further editing.

Wikipidia articles are always on the first page when you make a search on Google, or another search engine. This makes Wikipidia a very influential tool in swaying public opinion. Many people complain that Americans are dumb, and they don’t know basic facts, or that they are shallow. Well now with the internet, they are becoming more aware, but don’t leave them in the hands of half-illiterate graduate students, or right wing fanatics.

Why was the Russian Intelligentsia category deleted, that LevKamensky created, that contained some three dozen brightest minds in Russian culture of the XX century? Why does the Russian social groups category contain cosacs and peasants but not intellectuals? We think this is more political than neutral. 

So stop using Wikipedia