Talk:Boris Stomakhin/Archive 1

message: Here is translation of his piece of writing which is quintessential phrase of all his politic ideas:
"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 programm 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".
"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 sould be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced".
You may find all the articles of Stomakhin in Russian at .
: What you cite is propaganda. It is enought to summarize the content of his article in a single sentence. Besides, you are distorting the meaning of the article by citing a few selected pieces without the context. Biophys 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I request that you support your statement about propaganda with verifiable arguments. These citations present my translation of some passages of Stomakhin's articles. They are taken from the website of Stomkahin's Revolutionary Contact Association and were signed by him personally. http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm Vlad fedorov 07:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: It's certainly not a propaganda. Mr. Stomakhin was convicted for these passages in his articles and their public dissemination which could be ascertained from your own links to official conviction of Stomakhin. These phrases and not the whole articles were the pinpoint of the prosecution. 
Consider your own case of propaganda and cronyism, you wrote that "Human rights activists Svetlana Gannushkina... and a number of other independent human rights activists.." without naming these other activists. Which amounts to unsupported statement. I just not touching the issues of Svetlana Gannushkina independence which is supported by foreign grants from unidentified persons.
You also wrote that Stomakhin was sentenced just because he compared Putin with Saddam Hussein, or because he claimed that Russia as totalitarian state should be destroyed, which is lies that could be evidenced by just reading the official court sentence which is supported with specific evidence. He was proved guilty to "igniting religious and national hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, defamatory statements, promoting violent change of territorial integrity of Russian Federation, extremist propaganda and terrorist activities". He called to destroy not only Russia, but Russians as a nation, and not because Russia is a totalitarian state, but because "Russians are bloody cannibals, orges". 
You should either prove the evidence to be unreliable - which amounts to public vindication of Russian Federation, or prove the court was biased - which amounts to conviction of Russian Federation court in commiting a crime. 
Even further, your text contains too many grammatical mistakes. Just for example, "Human rights activists Svetlana Gannushkina, Valeria Novodvorskaya believes...". Two individuals believe and only one believes. Learn Simple Present (aka Present Indefinite). 
I'm in no way distorting the meaning of Stomakhin's articles - your assertion is not supported with arguments - you just deleted the whole section from this article. Moreover, Russian version of Wikipedia contains these same citations of Stomakhin. Why you consider the English version should lack these ones? Considering your other articles about politics in Russia in English Wikipedia, I consider you to be  unobjective and biased contributor.
These words are the facts, the rest is your (Biophys') political personal opinion which should not distort the encyclopedia and its users. If you want more objective citation, please make one, if you want to translate the whole his article - please make one. 
But do not try to mess with the work at encyclopedia's content. It's not your personal home page, where you could moderate others with your political beliefs. Encyclopedic content should be verifiable - these conditions are met, I provided the link to all of Stomakhins articles.
Please be advised of the main key policies of Wikipedia:
* Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Dispute resolution.)
* Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus. (This too is a Foundation issue that applies to all Wikimedia Foundation projects.)
Do not forget about arbitration option in Wikipedia.
213.184.225.28 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you register as a user please? Thank you for correcting my language mistakes. I will try to improve the content according to your recommendations. I still belive that Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. So, this text should be deleted from Russian Wikipedia as well. I do my best to follow all Wikipedia rules. I did not simply deleted your text. I replaced it by a summary from one sentence. No bias here. Biophys 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still haven't got any argument of yours in order to support you labelling Stomakhin's citations as propaganda. You are not allowed to judge by your opinion the character of information sources. You are not allowed to make original research in living person biography, and therefore you are not allowed to disregard Stomakhin citations which are signed and published by him. Vlad fedorov 09:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to NPOV

message: The article definitly looks much more better now. Thank you for doing that job. 
Minor suggestion.   Stomakhin's organization is called Revolutionary Contact Association.
You tend to cite only pro-Stomakhin's sources (his supporters), such as grani.ru site which belongs to Berezovsky. I would add his opponents opinions. The information given about double case dismissal due to lack of evidence is wrong. The case was dismissed only once, and second time it was just postponed due to Stomakhin's escape from psychiatric expertise, but not dismissed. The source of wrong information is the well-known correspondent of Grani.ru - Vladimir Abarinov, notorious for his USA worshiping, and who, by the way, is not a person competent in legal affairs. All the official prosecution documents, including conviction, give the details for the whole process of Stomakhin's prosecution.
Psichushka as a link for the Moscow Serbsky Institute is not appropriate link definitely. The fact it was used for some time in past in order to suppress political opponents is not relevant nowdays for the Stomakhin's case.
As to the term "extremist" - the source of this term is the official court sentence. I just cited specific portion of the court decision as an official document. I would translate that portion of court sentence and include in the article later. I also cited that specific large bulk of the court sentence on russian in point 4, as you have requested. You may also just use search button in the internet explorer in order to find that passage in the court sentence.
Thank you for your job, once again.
Vlad fedorov 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update as of December 18, 2006 20:50

message: Dear Alexey thank you very much for your assistance as an administrator of English Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alex Bacharev

message: Types of vandalism
Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
Sneaky vandalism 
Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos, hiding vandalism e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one, or reverting legitimate edits to hinder the improvement process.
Information about prosecution trying to render Stomakhin mentally ill, although officially ordered expertise proved him capable
Redirect vandalism 
Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves. 
Using a link to Psikhushka for Moscow Serbsky Institute
Link vandalism 
Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something completely different or ridiculous (e.g. France). 
Using a link to Psikhushka for Moscow Serbsky Institute
Vlad fedorov 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because Psikhushka is a Wikipedia article where Serbsky Institute has been described. However, I will try to resolve your concern by creating a Wikipedia article about Serbsky Institute as soon as I can.Biophys 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many articles where Serbsky Institute is described. You have maliciously chosen to create an article to conform to your opinion.Vlad fedorov 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Done by your request.Biophys 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the selected citation has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians.  However this is not true, which is clear after reading his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation was. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article. Biophys 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biophys, You constantly cite too much of slogans that you personally support. At the same time you always summarize what I cite, even the words of Stomakhin. Do you consider yourself objective ? I will revert everything you do trying to cover your biased POV. Vlad fedorov 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this citation is inappropriate

message: I made a few changes and left this citation of Stomakhin as it was in the article by Maksim Sokolov. There is no need to talk several times about killing Russians, because this is already present in the cited passage. I still belive this article violates living person policies, but this version might be some kind of a compromise. Biophys 20:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask you not to summarize citations of Stomakhin. Because you try to distort, and make his opinions less radical by summarizing which is called vandalism actually. Vlad fedorov 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not an argument for listing of Stomakhin as a political prosoner. In no way. Vlad fedorov 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Biophys, you clearly need to look this definition with more attention. Because Stomakhin was sued by the people, and not by the government. And he was sentenced for inciting religious and enthnic violence and calls for violent change of constitutional regime. These charges are not political ones. Try to meditate at this, and may the Buddha enlighten your ignorance. Vlad fedorov 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does not really matter what the official court sentence says. Many famous political prisoners and prisoners of conciense were convicted based on bogus charges. If the international human right protection organisations recognize a person as someone who was prosecuted for exercising his free speech right,  then he can be described in Wikipedia as such person. Biophys 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't answered my point about "political" prosecution. As long as no one disputes that fact and it is evident that allegations of Human Rights Organizations are false. Stomakhin wasn't prosecuted by the government. Indeed, it is the government that refused to prosecute Stomakhin at first criminal case against him. If other sources say that Stomakhin is not such person, and as no one defends their allegations in the courts, than there are other opinions which should be presented in this article, and which you can't deny and delete.Vlad fedorov 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You may think whatever you want. But that article is not your personal page. You may write this in articles for Adolph Hitler and the likes. Vlad fedorov 06:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   If you think my citation is biased, you are very welcome to include any other passages from the official court sentence (because I regard RKO web cite as unrelibale source - according to Wikipedia criteria).  There is also one important principle. If I included some important information or citation supported by a source (which is more reliable than the marginal web RKO site), you can not simply delete my text. Alex Bakharev and others, can you confirm that this is the rule? Otherwise, I am wasting my time here. Biophys 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we should look into page history to identify who's simply deliting which text, right? You may invite anyone including Alex Bakharev, as it is you. Vlad fedorov 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I also do not have to "identify" any organizations that are described in Wikipedia, such as ARTICLE 19 or others. Biophys 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise