Talk:Boris Stomakhin

message: Another potentially unreliable source I want to ask about is Russian newspaper "Utro" that includes an unsigned but dated article (this is not an editorial article). This article allege that Stomakhin helped materially Chechen terrorists who took hostages, based on information provided by FSB.  That would be a charge in terrorism rather than hate speech. However, this charge (obviously fabricated by FSB) was not brought to the court and was not supported or even mentioned by any other sources.Biophys 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it wasn't brought to the court? The case may be still under the investigation. Please present reliable source stating your opinion there.Vlad fedorov 
I think a claim that someone is terrorist (although the person was never even charged of this terrible crime in the court) is an "exceptional claim". The rules say that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." Biophys 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please present reliable source claimg Stomakhin is terrorist. Utro doesn't claims that Stomakhin is terrorist.Vlad fedorov 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of this article you just reverted says: Utro alleged that during the Moscow theater hostage crisis, terrorists had "contacted with activists of Revolutionary Contact Association" and they "may be involved in supplying terrorists with ammunition and its storing at Moscow". Indeed, the article in Utro says just that. But there is no sense to discuss anything until we resolve the previous question about RKO web site and citation of RKO site by Sokolov.Biophys 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why have you started this Section?Vlad fedorov 04:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have claimed that the only thing you dispute in the article is 'Death to Russia'. Why have you lied then?Vlad fedorov 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just tell us why Utro doesn't seem to be a reliable source for anything, because I may label anything I don't like personally unreliable. The 'yellow press' is as liable for their statements as common press. See the UK news on 'The Mirror' and the likes. It is mass media. There is no any specific status for yellow press in Wikipedia policies. Moreover, yellow press sometimes does prominent job by uncovering hidden matters such as Doctor Kelly's death connected with Iraq Dossier. So far except your general label 'yellow press', I see nothing else. Vlad fedorov 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newspaper Utro.ru is officially registered mass media in Russian Federation. Here is relevant official information which tells that Utro.ru is officially registered mass media in Russian Federation. Utro newspaper was published since 1999. Об издании: "Утро", свидетельство о регистрации СМИ Эл №ФС 77-23513 от 28.02.2006 Зарегистрировано в Федеральной службе по надзору за соблюдением законодательства в сфере массовых коммуникаций и охране культурного наследия. Учредитель: ООО "Медиа Мир". Генеральный директор: Михаил Гуревич Тематика: экономическая, общественно-политическая. Редакция газеты начала работу 17 августа 1999 года. В середине сентября стали выходить пилотные номера, 28 сентября вышел первый номер.http://www.utro.ru/about.shtmlVlad fedorov 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Liability has never stopped anybody. ‘Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false.’ (WP:BLP) My impression is that the site is not as reliable as e. g. nytimes.com, but that’s really just an impression—if there is consensus to the opposite, I’ll accept it. —xyzzyn 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we expected to judge by your impression? Of course you have cited NY Times as reliable, but can't you remember that journalist of NY Times during Second Iraq War was caught for writing material on Iraq sitting in US? All newspapers are equal and should be presumed good faith. Could you prove that facts published by Utro are false or at least contradict to some other sources? Just for your personal information, newspaper Utro.ru is cited in English Wikipedia articles on History of Nagorno-Karabakh, Beslan school hostage crisis, Zulfiya Zabirova, Timeline of the Beslan school hostage crisis, I do not mention referencing to Utro.ru in Russian Wikipedia which tells there are 43 references to Utro.ru. I think its pretty well for a reliable source. Vlad fedorov 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no any information on SOVA centre that the texts of Sentence and Conviction (Indictment) were taken form somewhere. The additional links below the texts are not described as links to the original documents. It is also probably that other websites just took them. However, if Biophys would delete all other materials taken by him from zaborisa.narod.ru, I agree do delete Conviction (Indictment) since all the material in it is covered by the Court sentence.Vlad fedorov 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence: ‘Текст не является официальной публикацией и воспроизводится по материалам сайта ╚Права человека в России╩.’ Indictment: ‘Документ воспроизводится по материалам сайта "Борис Стомахин должн быть свободен".’ —xyzzyn 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am strongly against. The letter claimed to be signed by Bukovsky and letter by Litvinenko are published only at zaborisa.narod.ru and Chechenpress.net, the latter being the website of Chechen terrorists (separatists) known for its disinformation strategies like Kavkazcenter.org. These sources are not objective ones.Vlad fedorov 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Which other sources have the sentence and have not copied it from this site? Even if a source that is generally reliable copies material from an unreliable source without editing, this does not render the unreliable material reliable. —xyzzyn 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was talking about  and . Are they not good? Do you suggest to remove the text of the court sentence? I really do not understand anymore which sources are appropriate and which are not. Do you want me to replace all "zaborisa" references by other references?  Just tell, and I would try to follow your advice. Biophys 21:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you then remove himself everything that is poorly sourced from the article? Then, we would see if something can be restored back supported by alternative good references.  Biophys 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The hro.org source seems to be an independent transcript/copy of the sentence, so we can cite it. I do not know whether similar independent sources can be found for other material from the narod.ru site. I do think that material on narod.ru (a free web hosting site without any editorial oversight) and marsho.net (an extremist website) should not be cited except maybe to reference Stomakhin’s own writings on marsho.net, if there is consensus that this is possible (and necessary). —xyzzyn 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far, there is no consensus about anything.  I would agree with the following: do not cite narod.ru and RKO sites (which also excludes direct citation in Sokolov' article that came from RKO site). If Vlad agrees, we can move forward and make changes accordingly. Biophys 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to keep citations from Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolv, and citation from rko.marsho.net. As for zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net, it is clear that they have been made after Stomakhin arrest and they pursue only one aim - disinformation in order to lure support for Stomakhin.Vlad fedorov 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote "Utro"

message: Vlad has added two(?) citations of content on the SOVA Centre website, sova-center.ru. However, according to the cited pages, both are copied from other websites. The ‘sentence’ document is from http://www.hro.org/editions/freedom/2006/11/28.php; hro.org seems to be against the verdict against Stomakhin but not really in favour of his work (which is an improvement from the previous source for the document). The ‘conviction’ (indictment?) document is from http://zaborisa.marsho.net/?pg=7&item=26, which does not seem reliable. I suggest using the hro.org page as citation for the sentence (if only because the quotes and dashes work in my browser, as opposed to the SOVA page) and either finding an independent source for the indictment document or not using it as a source. —xyzzyn 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no any information on SOVA centre that the texts of Sentence and Conviction (Indictment) were taken form somewhere. The additional links below the texts are not described as links to the original documents. It is also probably that other websites just took them. However, if Biophys would delete all other materials taken by him from zaborisa.narod.ru, I agree do delete Conviction (Indictment) since all the material in it is covered by the Court sentence.Vlad fedorov 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence: ‘Текст не является официальной публикацией и воспроизводится по материалам сайта ╚Права человека в России╩.’ Indictment: ‘Документ воспроизводится по материалам сайта "Борис Стомахин должн быть свободен".’ —xyzzyn 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SOVA Centre citations

message: So, there are other sources with the court sentence cited by zaborisa.narod.ru. Same thing with a majority (although not all) articles in  zaborisa.narod.ru. I would not be too suspicious about this site. Anything from there can be included if (and only if) there is a link to another good primary source that provides original text of the article. That would make our life easier. Biophys 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am strongly against. The letter claimed to be signed by Bukovsky and letter by Litvinenko are published only at zaborisa.narod.ru and Chechenpress.net, the latter being the website of Chechen terrorists (separatists) known for its disinformation strategies like Kavkazcenter.org. These sources are not objective ones.Vlad fedorov 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Which other sources have the sentence and have not copied it from this site? Even if a source that is generally reliable copies material from an unreliable source without editing, this does not render the unreliable material reliable. —xyzzyn 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was talking about  and . Are they not good? Do you suggest to remove the text of the court sentence? I really do not understand anymore which sources are appropriate and which are not. Do you want me to replace all "zaborisa" references by other references?  Just tell, and I would try to follow your advice. Biophys 21:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you then remove himself everything that is poorly sourced from the article? Then, we would see if something can be restored back supported by alternative good references.  Biophys 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The hro.org source seems to be an independent transcript/copy of the sentence, so we can cite it. I do not know whether similar independent sources can be found for other material from the narod.ru site. I do think that material on narod.ru (a free web hosting site without any editorial oversight) and marsho.net (an extremist website) should not be cited except maybe to reference Stomakhin’s own writings on marsho.net, if there is consensus that this is possible (and necessary). —xyzzyn 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far, there is no consensus about anything.  I would agree with the following: do not cite narod.ru and RKO sites (which also excludes direct citation in Sokolov' article that came from RKO site). If Vlad agrees, we can move forward and make changes accordingly. Biophys 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to keep citations from Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolv, and citation from rko.marsho.net. As for zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net, it is clear that they have been made after Stomakhin arrest and they pursue only one aim - disinformation in order to lure support for Stomakhin.Vlad fedorov 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/ citation 

message: Vlad demands an explanation why I am reverting his changes. Here it is. I think he violates LP and other Wikipedia policies simultaneously at three levels. 
1. Unreliable sources. The citation in Sokolov's paper comes from RKO site, which is unreliable source because it has no editorial oversight, it is a private site run by a small group of people, and the articles are not even dated (worse than blog where all correspondence is usually dated).
2. Some sources are not neutral. Vlad and Alex Bakharev claimed that Izvestia is a "neutral respectable newspaper". But it is not. This newspaper is governmental property. It was purchased by state-owned Gazprom, see Izvestia. The article by Maksim Sokolov is obviously a defamation, because Sokolov compares Stomakhin with Adolf Hitler and says that Stomakhin is worse than Adolf Hitler. Same thing with the unsigned article by Utro, which is a newspaper of Russian nationalists. As I said, terrorism is an exceptional claim that must be supported by multiple sources. Citing "Utro"  and Maksim Sokolov may be compared with citing someone like Joseph Goebbels  (I said: "Goebbels" because Sokolov compared Stomakhin with Hitler).  But citing ARTICLE 19 or Vladimir Bukovsky is something very different and appropriate for this case.  The proceeding of Kangaroo court in Moscow is also not a neutral source.
3. Non-encyclopedic style. "Kill, kill, kill!" is not for Wikipedia. Many groups or people advocate war, including even American neoconservatives. Their views can be easily described (and actually described in Wikipedia) in general words, without any propaganda or defamation.
I compromised on almost everything here. We included allegations by "Utro" (now I can see - that was wrong). We included allegations by court. We included allegations by Maksim Sokolov. My last version was like that:
Sokolov "cited a text allegedly written by Boris Stomakhin, which claimed that "Russian Federation must be destroyed" using all available violent means including nuclear weapons, because all Russians are collectively responsible for actions of their state with respect to Chechen people.'
What else do you want? User:Jkelly also found that Vlad violates LP policies,even without looking at the original Russian texts and blocked temporarily his access to this article, which was evaded by Vlad. Therefore, I have no other choice but to continue reverting his changes violating LP policy. Biophys 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality is eliminated by presenting other POV, which is done prominently. You consider it is encyclopedic to believe in all your guesses and conspiracy theories? Why you censor journalist and Izvestia article? Journalist can't have his own opinion? By the way, I do not cite his comparison with Mein Campf in the Wiki article, therefore discourse above is senseless.Vlad fedorov 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Jkelly hasn't found anything. I don't violate LP policy now.Vlad fedorov 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violations of LP policy

message: Questions for Biophys:
*Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the Wiki article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
*Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
*one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
*Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
*Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
*Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
*Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
*Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
*The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
*Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.
And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations?
Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I never used RKO site. To the contrary, it was my argument do not use this  site. You did not disprove any of my arguments. Biophys 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You use RKO website to prove that Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolov is unreliable. Why you lie now? All your words and statements are recorded above. For example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Attention_please._Citation_of_Stomakin_by_Maksim_Sokolov_is_probaly_falsification.21 You have claimed that there is no such text cited by Maksim Sokolv at RKO website. Was it you?Vlad fedorov 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biophys who wrote this? Vlad fedorov 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points to answer for Biophys

message: Please read my text above about violations of LP policies. I explained there why RKO site and Sokolov citation (from the same RKO site) are unreliable. This is not due to any contradictions. This is private extremist site, no editorial oversight, and articles are not even dated. We must first decide the question about citation of RKO site. Only then we can move forward. As long as you restore the defamatory citation of this unreliable source, I am going to revert your changes. I agree to exclude all references to other not so reliable sources, such as "Pro Stomakhin" site, if you agree to exclude direct citations of RKO site by Sokolov.Biophys 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biophys, please stop reverting edits in bulk. If you disagree with some references, remove the corresponding passages, but don't revert the whole addition just like that, it's extremely annoying. For one, extracts from conviction and court sentence are perfectly reliable sources, when speaking of things he got convicted of. And yes, if you want to remove references from RKO, please also be kind and remove references to those "pro" sites advocating ethnic hatred. Thank you. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our main disagreement with Vlad is about citing RKO site. If he agrees about that, we can move forward and discuss any other changes he wants. Let's do one thing at a time, and start from the most important point of contention. The problem is: he inserted a lot of other things that are POV and violate LP policy. We can discuss all of that, but let's do it step by step. As a gesture of good will, I agree to improve the reliability of the existing "pro" sources (this needs some time) and represent and explain Sokolov opinion more prominently. But this should be done starting from the existing version that does not violates LP policy. I will do it. So, Vlad, do you agree not to cite the RKO site through Sokolov or otherwise? Biophys 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree that's the main disagreement. However, Izvestia and court sentence, are perfectly reliable sources and should be kept. Whether the sentence is "fair", "kangoroo" or whatever is another  matter, and kinda out of place on WP: if you someone is sentenced to prison for X or Y, it should be mentionned. That's the main point actually. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I explained (see LP violations above), Izvestia and Maksim Sokolov is not a neutral source and therefore can be challenged. But I am ready for compromise. During the previous discussion mediated by User:William M. Connolley (thanks to him!), we found that a continuous citation from the article of Sokolov comes from three different sources, at least two of which are RKO site. Actually, the person who found it was Vlad. At least the fragments of texts are identical (Sokolov did not tell where his citation came from). Thus, it originates from an unreliable primary source. Therefore, my position is the following: describe the opinion of Sokolov (why not?) but do not cite directly the unreliable source. I also can agree that citing court sentence is appropriate because it comes from Russian language sources that seem to be sufficiently reliable although perhaps not neutral. Biophys 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  O'K, I started substituting some references, but that takes a lot of time. Let's decide first that we do not cite RKO site through Sokolov. Otherwise, this is waist of time. Biophys 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I made some changes to reduce any possible pro-Stomakhin bias and explain from the beginning (in introduction) why he has been convicted. The article is better now. It does not have pro-Stomakhin bias now, really. Biophys 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone can see that I am working toward a reasonable compromise. But since Vlad continue to revert all my changes and includes the disputed citation, there is no way forward. Vlad, it is you who should prove that your source is reliable, according to Wikipedia rules. What conspiracy theory in this article are you talking about? I will provide alternative references to narod.ru as soon as we resolve our main problem with RKO site.Biophys 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RKO site - reply

message: To replace He was one of a few journalists in Russia who openly challenged policies of Putin's administration with respect to Chechnya. He was imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya. with He considered Chechen War as a conflict between Russian and Chechen states and was a strong adversary of Russians while advocating the other side. In March 22, 2006 he was sentenced to five years according to Articles 280 (Public Appeals for a Forcible Change of the Constitutional System of the Russian Federation) and 282 (Incitement of National, Racial, or Religious Enmity) of Russia's Criminal Code.
Stomakhin was imprisoned not for being an oppositioner or advocating Chechen separatists, but for how he expressed and spread his views. ellol 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ellol, actually this segment is about notability, as suppose to be in the Introduction of any biography. Stomakhin is notable for two reasons. 1. He openly objected Russian operations in Chechnya. There are only two other such journalists in Russia known to the West: Dmitrievsky and Anna Politkovskaya. Anna is dead and Dmitrievskii is also convicted for "hate speech" (but not in prison yet). That is notable and should be mentioned in the article. 2. Stomakhin is probably the only journalist in Russia currently in prison for alleged hate speech (there is another journalist listed by CPJ, but I do not know why he was convicted). That is also notable. If you can suggest how this could be formulated better, we can discuss it.Biophys 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both claims require sound citations. —xyzzyn 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree. Of course we should remove it since it is not supported by any sources and presents Biophys POV.Vlad fedorov 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds too complicated. We need something very clear and simple for the initial abstract. The reference to criminal code "Articles 280 (Public Appeals for a Forcible Change of the Constitutional System of the Russian Federation) and 282 (Incitement of National, Racial, or Religious Enmity)" does not work here. Honestly, since the article is locked, can we just relax a little and do something more useful? This Stomakhin does not deserve so much of our nerves and attention. Biophys 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys was deleteing and reverting versions done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version. Now the article contains only Biophys citations. Biophys failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. Biophys lied intentionally about contradictions. And Biophys deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "editprotected" template. This is not a request to edit the protected page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rules say: "During an edit war, do not ask for a page to be protected on a specific version or, if it has already been protected, reverted to some version other than the current one. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute." So, we should try to resolve the dispute. Right? Biophys 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I propose the following. Let's set up a cooling off period: one month. After that, we can return to this discussion and try to find an agreement. Right now things are too hot. We probably can not agree about anything, judging from our previous discussion. Biophys 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if you want to do anything sooner, we can discuss it. No problem. I am ready for any negotiations. Biophys 15:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal for unprotection 

message: If we want to agree about anything, let's agree about certain rules for discussion. If these rules contradict any stated Wikipedia policies, please tell and let's discuss the rules first.
Rule 1. Do not breake to parts and modify comments of each other.
Rule 2. The currently protected version of the article serves as a basis for further changes (improvements).
Rule 3. We consider one change at a time.
Rule 4. Other side has 48 hours to answer (I suppose we all busy at work).
Rule 5. All sides including Vlad and me must agree to make this particular change.
Rule 6. Since we have serious disagreements, let's start from things that are obviously wrong (from your or Vlad point of view in the current version). 
7. (not a rule). Let's have 3-day cooling off period.
If you and Vlad agree, we can start this work. If not, this will be waist of time. 
Now about your suggestion. This segment tells: "He was one of a few journalists in Russia who openly challenged policies of Putin's administration with respect to Chechnya. He was imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya." 
Obviously, Stomakhin was against policies of Putin's administration in Chechnya.
Obviuosly, he was imprisoned. Obviously, he was accused in advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya, as follows from the text of this article. So, may be we should start from something that is really wrong (Rule 6)?Biophys 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ‘One of a few’ is not obvious and ‘imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya’ is misleading (the court’s verdict says rather different things). And the text of a Wikipedia article is no evidence. So why don’t we start with that stuff? —xyzzyn 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  O'K, we can start from that 'if we can agree about the rules. Then, the phrase ‘imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya’ should be replaced by something justified by references. Biophys 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don’t ask me about the rules; I am not going to play with the article. I might eventually fix grammar, style and translations, but only after there is agreement about the content. —xyzzyn 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not agree there. Somebody has made fake unsigned agreement. The current version of the article is POV biased and has removed official sources. All the official information is removed there and misrepresented.Vlad fedorov 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to note that Vlad just broke Rule number 1. He broked to parts (modified) my comments. He did this many times before. It is impossible to discuss anything this way. Biophys 05:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not forge anything. What kind on nonsense are you talking about?
Biophys 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting the rules

message: We are moving too slow. Now, it is my turn to suggest an improvement for this article. I suggest to delete last paragraph about a defamatory publication by Maksim Sokolov. I can agree that Izvestia is a "reliable source". But this particular article is not a neutral source. Clearly, the comparison of Stomakhin with Hitler is not fair. Hitler is a mass murderer. Stomakhin did not kill or assaulted anyone and did not order to kill anyone.  We should not use Sokolov's writings in the article about Stomakhin, just as we should not use Stomakhin's writings in the article about Vladimir Putin.Biophys 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler ordered killing people. Stomakhin did not. Therefore, a comparison with Hitler is defamatory and certainly not neutral. Same can be said about writings of Stomakhin with regard to Putin and Russians.  According to Wikipedia recommendations, such sources are not appropriate to use in biographies of living people.  I would not use anything from Stomakhin writings in the article about Putin.Biophys 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ignorance is fantastic. In Nuremberg Trial Materials there is no a single document about extermination signed by Hitler. Vlad fedorov 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  "На этом фоне "Майн кампф" - учебник гуманизма." -- "At this background Mein Kampf is a textbook of humanism". Do not see here comparison to Hitler. ellol 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I didn't get your point that you wouldn't cite Stomakhin in the article about Putin. ellol 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He said that Stomakhing writings are worse than Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I don't agree with you. You have taken all your material from the blog La Russophobe which incites racial and ethnic hatred like Stomakhin. Izvestia article should be - this is my last word. As well as article from Komsomolskaya Pravda which journalist suggested that Stomakhin is mentally ill and describe Stomakhin ideas about closing Orthodox religion. Then we really have nothing to discuss with you.Vlad fedorov 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So, you are telling that you "have nothing to discuss" with me. I can not force you if you do not want.Biophys 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you, Biophys, the Liar, who told the following first:
 Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons
 explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to 
 discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article by Maksim Sokolov

message: I suggest we should follow an advice by administrator
physicq. See 
Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Boris_Stomakhin_article_and_inciting_of_ethinic_hatred.
He recommended the following: 
*1. We should step back from the article and from each other for the moment and try editing something else.
*2. Vlad can try WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM if he wants. Biophys 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He never recommended to step out of the article, Biophys, The Liar.Vlad fedorov 05:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommendations by an administrator

message: Dear administrators, please disambiguate Russian to Russian in the lead. Thanks in advance. MaxSem 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Vlad demands an explanation why I am reverting his changes. Here it is. I think he violates LP and other Wikipedia policies simultaneously at three levels. 
1. Unreliable sources. The citation in Sokolov's paper comes from RKO site, which is unreliable source because it has no editorial oversight, it is a private site run by a small group of people, and the articles are not even dated (worse than blog where all correspondence is usually dated).
2. Some sources are not neutral. Vlad and Alex Bakharev claimed that Izvestia is a "neutral respectable newspaper". But it is not. This newspaper is governmental property. It was purchased by state-owned Gazprom, see Izvestia. The article by Maksim Sokolov is obviously a defamation, because Sokolov compares Stomakhin with Adolf Hitler and says that Stomakhin is worse than Adolf Hitler. Same thing with the unsigned article by Utro, which is a newspaper of Russian nationalists. As I said, terrorism is an exceptional claim that must be supported by multiple sources. Citing "Utro"  and Maksim Sokolov may be compared with citing someone like Joseph Goebbels  (I said: "Goebbels" because Sokolov compared Stomakhin with Hitler).  But citing ARTICLE 19 or Vladimir Bukovsky is something very different and appropriate for this case.  The proceeding of Kangaroo court in Moscow is also not a neutral source.
3. Non-encyclopedic style. "Kill, kill, kill!" is not for Wikipedia. Some people advocate war. Their views can be easily described (and actually described in Wikipedia) in general words, without any propaganda or defamation.Biophys 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violations of [[WP:BLP]] policy

message: Vlad just included the following text:
The Stomakhin's article contained the following passages written by Stomakhin: Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown[7] [32]. Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced[32]
As I explained above many times, this is direct citation of a primary source that does not satisfy WP:SOURCE. Let me explain again. First, this is clearly a "questionable source". It has "no editorial oversight or fact-checking process...Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." WP:BLP say that questionable source "can be used in articles about those sources as long as it is not contentious; it does not involve claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." Obviously, this text is extremely contentious, it involves unfair and unsubstantiated claims about other people, and there are even doubt as to who wrote it (author was initially indicted based on false claims that he wrote something and posted on a web site which he actually did not write). Clearly, this is not an appropriate source. Also see my objections here . Biophys 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits are based on reliable sources. They represent real facts. Among my sources are court sentence which is an official document you trying to eliminate from the text. Vlad fedorov 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I just explained why this particular source is unreliable.Biophys 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Mediator Diez promised to prepare a compromise version and asked us wait. We agreed. So, let's follow his instructions and do not start RR wars again.Biophys 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Biophys, you dispute only two citations. But you never disputed citation of journalists from Komsomolskaya Pravda, which you delete from the article. Also I would like to learn your explanation for deleting statements of Gannushkina about "outrageous opinion of Stomakhin" and deletion of information from zaborisa.marsho.net about refusal by Novodvorskaya to defend Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violations of [[WP:BLP]] continue after unlocking this page

message: Dear Biophys, would you be so kind as not to violate WP:3RR. Please do not revert more than 3 times in 24 h. Vlad fedorov 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: Biophys, please let us discuss how could we make a citation of Maksim Sokolov in the article. You rewordings are very vague and do not translate the whole extent of Stomakhin writings. Please suggest other way of its mentioning. And by the way, why you consider Sokolov's citations as a violation of BLP. We already established that Sokolov's citation are not contradictory. So why you comsider appropriate citations of Ion Mihai Pacepa and at the same time you consider Sokolov's citations as unappropriate? Vlad fedorov 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new attempt to compromise 

message: Biophys and Vlad fedorov, could I suggest that prolonging the edit war is a waste of your time? Vlad fedorov , in edit summaries you have indicated some of the content is less contentious, in which case could I suggest you post this material on this page. After gaining consensus regarding this material, we could then move onto the more contentious (and possibly not fully sourced) areas. Addhoc 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, really? You suggest your best biased friend Colchicum? Thank you Biophys... You are so kind. Is it the same Colchicum who worte request for comment against me? Is it the same Colchicum who falsely accused me of wikistalking him?  Is this Colchicum neutral then? Thank you Biophys, but I don't need Colchicum actually. Vlad fedorov 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: People!! PLEASE... I am making a request to the Mediation Committee to mediate this argument. Thank you. Diez2 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undergoing Mediation 

message: Biophys and Vlad, I now need your signatures signing that you agree to enter mediation talks about this ongoing issue at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Thank you. Diez2 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Signatures 

message: Simple: do we have reference(s) that call him that? If so, we can reference the controversial part with them. If not, then indeed we cannot do OR and claim that he is one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's obviously the point. But of course, if the organisation ABABAGAVA claimed Stomakhin is a political prisoner, we can't just say "Stomakhin is a political prisoner [link to ABABAGAVA]", but "Organization ABABAGAVA recognized Stomakhin a political prisoner [link to ABABAGAVA]". ellol 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political prisoner?

message: User:Vlad fedorov checked many weblinks used in the article and found quite a number of them to be dead all the information based on those links is removed. While checking the references is very important I do not think removing the info straight away is helpful. I recon that all those links were checked during the intensive edit war around the article in 2007 and they were alive at that time. We can find them using a webarchive or fix the location of the links if they are simply moved to a new location, etc. I propose to restore this info and just tag it with , giving the interested editors some time to fix the references Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I randomly checked one such deletion and find it reasonable: "he was one of two journalists currently..." - I don't find this fact (that he is one of two) is encyclopedic: today he is one of two, tomorrow he is one of one or of 30.... And I don't see the importance of it. So I guess Vlad's edit must be considered one by one according to its merits. I reverted one of them already. - Altenmann >t 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Not to say that this fact turns out to be false: not two but more journalists were persecuted for similar reasons. - Altenmann >t 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem for temporal restoration of dead links info. But... how long does that dead info could be on WP? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I support restoring the info and linking to Internet Archive where possible, the refs have enough info to restore them even if the info is not online. That said, I am  not necessarily saying all of Vlad's edits are without substance - but they need to be carefuly reviewed one by one, and arguments presented here why the referenced info should go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Piotrus for your care. I really appreciate this. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing info due to dead links 

message: This article seems to be suffering from a major BLP issues, starting with the lead - change of "editor of dissident periodicals" into "editor of hate speech periodicals" and many other unreferenced changes. Vlad's changes should be reverted, there is a reason he was banned for a year, and I see nothing to indicate this reason is no longer valid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is his ban expired? - Altenmann >t 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course my ban has expired. Please read the court sentence for Boris Stomakhin http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html. What is the problem? User Piotrus is not Russian proficient and makes bandwagon accusations in revenge for my edits in Polonization article. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please address the criticisms expressed in this and previous sections by two different persons. - Altenmann >t 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive BLP violations 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://rko.cjb.net
*:Triggered by \bcjb\.net\b on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Boris Stomakhin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110326182134/http://www.grani.ru:80/Society/Media/m.114646.html to http://www.grani.ru/Society/Media/m.114646.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They must be retained in the article. They show what exactly he wrote and why he was sentenced. He was not some furry protested, he was a sick Russophobe. When a Russian court calls him Russophobe, the West do not believe: "this is all Russian propaganda and suppression of dissent". Let the West read Stomakhin directly and make their own mind. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, he has/had an Anti-Russian sentiment, and this is written on the page. That he was "sick" is your personal opinion. Per our BLP policy, we must provide a fair summary of his views as reflected in secondary sources on the subject. According to more appropriate version I am trying to make , According to Russian court, Stomakhin called for the violent overthrow of government[2], claimed that Russian troops in Chechnya are "occupiers", compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević.[3], called modern Russia "an Evil empire" that must be destroyed, and considered Shamil Basaev and Salman Raduev as heroes of legitimate Chechen resistance. This is fair summary/description of his views per sources. If it's not, then fix it. However, making an indiscriminate cherry-picked quotation of one of his internet publications (rather than a summary of his views by a 3rd neutral party) is not consistent with our BLP policy. Note that the piece you are trying to quote was not quoted by the court as a reason of his conviction. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "sick" is my personal opinion judging from the quote you removed and I was not putting it into the article, letting readers judge for themselves. Anyway, thank you for responding in talk page. I disagree with your interpretation of BLP; in particluar quotes are ...er... quotes and must always come from primary source, not from hearsay. But I don't really care. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I strongly disagree with him about killings, terror, Basayev, Raduev (who was a real Psycho even according to Khassan Baiev), etc., but ant-Russian sentiment is pretty common, especially in places like Poland, and I can't blame or judge people for feeling this way. They do have their reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes of Stomakhin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Boris Stomakhin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702143844/http://rgf.maoism.ru/Lenin.htm to http://rgf.maoism.ru/Lenin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211025136/http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html to http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919074458/http://kolokol.ru/activists/69450.html to http://kolokol.ru/activists/69450.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116020716/http://prima-news.ru/news/news/2006/3/29/35420.html to http://www.prima-news.ru/news/news/2006/3/29/35420.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522101939/http://rian.ru/defense_safety/investigations/20061005/54549461.html to http://rian.ru/defense_safety/investigations/20061005/54549461.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211025136/http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html to http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118140834/http://ng68.livejournal.com/1686075.html to http://ng68.livejournal.com/1686075.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118140834/http://andrey-russian.livejournal.com/17990.html to http://andrey-russian.livejournal.com/17990.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210222840/http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/ds.html to http://zaborisa.narod.ru/ds.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210223146/http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/lena.html to http://zaborisa.narod.ru/lena.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015007/http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/051107BM.shtml to http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/051107BM.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630090921/http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=7595 to http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=7595
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211025136/http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html to http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boris Stomakhin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015007/http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/051107BM.shtml to http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/051107BM.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630090921/http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=7595 to http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=7595
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Boris Stomakhin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201040858/http://rko.marsho.net/articl/articl.htm to http://rko.marsho.net/articl/articl.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201040753/http://rko.marsho.net/ to http://rko.marsho.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908000341/http://soprotivlenie.marsho.net/ to http://soprotivlenie.marsho.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)