Talk:Putin's Russia

message: I think it would be a good idea to discuss here, chapter by chapter, this entire book, with all pro and contra, and especially the role of Vladimir Putin.  This will be a really long article, just as Criticism of Vladimir Putin that exists in Russian Wikipedia. Indeed, we have to discuss somewhere Putin's Russia. Biophys 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article development

message: It would be appropriate to write here about any published critique of this book, for example, if someone  claims that any specific facts from this book are false. However, any claims about the author (Politkovskaya) are only appropriate in the article about Politkovskaya. Biophys 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you censor here? We may write any criticism here if it denotes Politkovskaya activities such as Politkovskaya writings. The book is a kind of writing, so criticism as to the actual accuracy of Politkovskaya is quite well placed.Vlad fedorov 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each article must be about its own subject. If this is an article about book "War and peace", let's write about the book. There is a separate article about Lev Tolstoy. If someone tells the book is wrong - this is relevant. Biophys 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Here we are supposed to discuss THESE writings only, not anything else by Politkovskaya. Accuracy criticism is certainly appropriate here, but only as far as it is about this book. However, I don't understand what the Content section is about. It is very incoherent. Who moves where? How are Fedulev or Budanov relevant? Colchicum 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. One should write something much better about the content of the book. Biophys So, I worked a little with the content (I have the book). More detail can be provided if needed. Biophys 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Vlad repeatedly includes materials and sources that are completely irrelevant to the subject of this article. He provided two sources. First says about this book only the following: "Her articles for the newspaper Novaya Gazeta won numerous international awards and she wrote two books about Chechnya, plus a highly critical political biography of Putin." (the latter means this book). Second source did not say a single word about this book. Biophys 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose ypur arguments, since they are relevant to Politkovskaya statements accuracy and reliability, and supported by reliable sources.Vlad fedorov 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Vlad just said in his comment line: "Unsourced defamatory statement presenting original research removed." But the only thing he actually deleted were two links to reviews of this book. At the same time, he included a text that is completely irrelevant to this BOOK and indeed represents POV and defamatory statements about author of the book. This is not a good faith effort, but an outright harassment. Biophys 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This criticism is relevant to all work of Politkovskaya, since this is a criticism of her accuracy and reliability. Book of Politkovksaya is not an official court sentence. It is just a personal opinion of Politkovskaya. Wikipedia is not a place where users publish personal opinions of journalists.Vlad fedorov 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, this is such place if this is an article about a book! Here we describe the book. The opinions of author can be POV or wrong, but it does not matter. We must describe the content and main ideas of the book, whatever they are. Many books are a matter of controversy; so there are "pro" and "contra" opinions about the book, which are described in the critical articles about the book.  It is perfectly fine to describe such opinions about the book, published in reliable sources. Therefore, I included a couple of such sources to reviews of the book. You or anyone else can use them. If you find any other good sources about the book, this is fine. Biophys 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to respond the following to the accusation of Biophys:
*First, users Biophys and Colchicum never contacted me on a Talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. In fact they just demanded me to stop the editing of the articles. They also never tried to resolve the dispute. They also haven't presented evidence of trying to resolve the dispute with me. Complains to the Administrators noticeboards and false, unsupported accusations of my violations of Wikipedia policies are not a method of resolving the dispute.
*Second, they violate 'good faith' obligatory assumption in cliaming that I stalk them. I am a newcomer to the Wikipedia. I was brought to the Wikipedia, because the article on Boris Stomakhin created by Biophys was completely outrageous since it turned everything uspide down. Convicted criminal Stomakhin was presented as a hero, besides his calls to exterminate all Russians, to destroy Russian with atomic explosion, to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.
*Third, accusations presented here were already taken up at vurtually every Administrators, incident, 3RR, BLP noticeboards and administrators talk pages. So they just mainly repeat their accusations. I have never received any warnings from administrators, because otherwise they would have gladly published these warnings already here. I was just arbitrarily blocked by non-Russian, English speaking admin William Connolley. This admin, however, later helped me to clarify the points of dispute which I had with Biophys over Boris Stomakhin article, but unfortunately he left the discussion on the talk page of Boris Stomakhin article, when the critical decision on the validity of Biophys accusations was needed.
*Fourth, these accusations pursue the goal to harass me and to stop me from contributing another POV into the articles dedicated to Russia.
*Fifth, I also would like to bring all these issues to the arbitration, because the allegations of Biophys and Colchicum that I violate Wikipedia policy by citing reliable sources defame me and are directed not on the sources, but on my person. I would like to have finally a decision of an arbitrator/mediator/administrator that my sources are valid and reliable, the are not contradictory and do not violate anything. The problem is that Biophys claims that every my contribution violates Wikipedia policies. This is a strategy taken by him in order to discredit every introduced material presenting other point of view.
The underlying problem, in my opinion, is the personal dislike of me and revenge of user Biophys against me for the following:
===1)Dispute over Boris Stomakhin article.===
In this dispute Biophys has created this article in order to present the evidence for human rights violations in Russia and to make the point in the article Human rights in Russia. However, the initial version of this article was totaly one-sided and presented just allegations of human rights activists and other defenders of Boris Stomakhin. In order to make the article NPOV and to add other POV I have added the official text of the Court sentence and Investigation conclusion on Boris Stomakhin. Also I have added Boris Stomakhin citation taken from the official website of his organization. These contributions made Biophys personal opinion on Stomakhin and his initial version of the article to look controversial. The edit war resulted because Biophys claimed that all my sources violate biography of living person policy. He was deleting opinions of the journalists from such respectable Russian newspapers as Komsomolskaya Pravda,  Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia. See the respective version of my edit of Boris Stomakhin article here  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=105173635
In order to delete my contributions from the article, Biophys had employed a strategy of accusing me of violations of Wikipedia policies. Namely, he declared that all my contributions are taken from the contradictory sources which violate Wikipedia BLP policy.  Namely he claimed that the article of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov who also was a talk show showman and is very respectable and famous journalist in Russia contradicts to the website of Boris Stomakhin. It was established that from the citated passage two citations of Boris Stomakhin are found in his articles on his website, and the third citation is not found here. Therefore it was established that Biophys claims about contradictions are false. See the discussion here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22.
As Biophys failed to present the evidence of contradictions he chose to accuse me of other violations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. He claimed after that the source (Izvestia newspaper article) is unreliable, it is not neutral, and it is "non-encyclopedic". As you see these accusations are not supported by any facts and resent just empty accusations. It is laughable to claim that the source is not neutral, sine the neutrality may be restored by presenting other POV and it is easy enough. However, Biophys pursued the goal of complete deletion of sources presenting POV which contradicts to his personal opinion. He failed to support his accusations here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy.
Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhinarticle was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strognly Russophobic views and maintains that criminal Boris Stomakhin, who got 5 years of prison in Russia for public calls to extremism and terrorism against Russians including me, is actually innocent dissident and there is conspiracy against him by Russian government
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22 here wrote the following:
 I am not talking about Izvestia at all. I am talking about this citation by Sokolov. 
 It was taken from another unreliable and not identified by Sokolov source (probably 
 RKO site). He also made a composition from three different articles/sources but 
 misrepresented this as a single continuous citation. We do not want such citations 
 in Wikipedia. Sokolov discloses his "source": Stomakhin (this is not a case with 
 protecting an anonymous witness). Of course, he does it! The entire article by 
 Sokolov is clearly a defamation of a dissident ordered by government (there are  
 numerous cases like that in Soviet history). But this is not my argument at the 
 moment. The argument is poor source - RKO site. Biophys 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV editing by Vlad

message: In this dispute Biophys has created this article in order to present the evidence for human rights violations in Russia and to make the point in the article Human rights in Russia. However, the initial version of this article was totaly one-sided and presented just allegations of human rights activists and other defenders of Boris Stomakhin. In order to make the article NPOV and to add other POV I have added the official text of the Court sentence and Investigation conclusion on Boris Stomakhin. Also I have added Boris Stomakhin citation taken from the official website of his organization. These contributions made Biophys personal opinion on Stomakhin and his initial version of the article to look controversial. The edit war resulted because Biophys claimed that all my sources violate biography of living person policy. He was deleting opinions of the journalists from such respectable Russian newspapers as Komsomolskaya Pravda,  Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia. See the respective version of my edit of Boris Stomakhin article here  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=105173635
In order to delete my contributions from the article, Biophys had employed a strategy of accusing me of violations of Wikipedia policies. Namely, he declared that all my contributions are taken from the contradictory sources which violate Wikipedia BLP policy.  Namely he claimed that the article of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov who also was a talk show showman and is very respectable and famous journalist in Russia contradicts to the website of Boris Stomakhin. It was established that from the citated passage two citations of Boris Stomakhin are found in his articles on his website, and the third citation is not found here. Therefore it was established that Biophys claims about contradictions are false. See the discussion here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22.
As Biophys failed to present the evidence of contradictions he chose to accuse me of other violations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. He claimed after that the source (Izvestia newspaper article) is unreliable, it is not neutral, and it is "non-encyclopedic". As you see these accusations are not supported by any facts and resent just empty accusations. It is laughable to claim that the source is not neutral, sine the neutrality may be restored by presenting other POV and it is easy enough. However, Biophys pursued the goal of complete deletion of sources presenting POV which contradicts to his personal opinion. He failed to support his accusations here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy.
Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhinarticle was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strognly Russophobic views and maintains that criminal Boris Stomakhin, who got 5 years of prison in Russia for public calls to extremism and terrorism against Russians including me, is actually innocent dissident and there is conspiracy against him by Russian government
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22 here wrote the following:
 I am not talking about Izvestia at all. I am talking about this citation by Sokolov. 
 It was taken from another unreliable and not identified by Sokolov source (probably 
 RKO site). He also made a composition from three different articles/sources but 
 misrepresented this as a single continuous citation. We do not want such citations 
 in Wikipedia. Sokolov discloses his "source": Stomakhin (this is not a case with 
 protecting an anonymous witness). Of course, he does it! The entire article by 
 Sokolov is clearly a defamation of a dissident ordered by government (there are  
 numerous cases like that in Soviet history). But this is not my argument at the 
 moment. The argument is poor source - RKO site. Biophys 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1)Dispute over [[Boris Stomakhin]] article.

message: As could be seen from the complaint, applicants do not show the real evidence of me stalking them, they just provide links to the history pages of some articles. It could be seen from these pages, that my edits, contributed to these articles, are deleted by users Biophys and Colchicum in no more than 24 hours period. 
Moreover, the fact that some pages were created by Biophys and Colchicum doesn't grant them any authority or powers to publish false information in them. And certainly doesn't forbid other users from editing their one-sided stories by adding relevant and sourced material.
Users Biophys and Colchicum never tried to resovle any disputes with me. Empty and false accusations on Administrators noticeboards are not a method of peaceful dispute resolution. Personal attacks and unsupported deletions of my contributions, intimidation and threats are certainly not the way a man could resolve a dispute.
Users Colchicum and Biophys claim that I currently 'stalk' them. However, it could be easily ascertained form the Colchicum contributions page that he is editing the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Colchicum
14:39, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anatoliy Serdyukov
14:24, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dzhokhar Dudaev (→Assassination)
03:39, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Democratic Union (Russia) (top)
03:36, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Viktor Cherkesov (top)
03:21, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions)
03:19, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions)
03:18, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions)
02:48, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Petri Krohn (Reiman) (top)
02:35, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergey Naryshkin (top)
02:24, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anatoliy Serdyukov
02:20, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Anatoliy Serdyukov
02:06, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Anatoliy Serdyukov (→External links)
02:00, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov (→Early life)
01:58, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov
01:57, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov
01:57, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Eduard Limonov
01:56, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Vladimir Pribylovsky (→External links) (top)
01:52, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Akhmed Zakayev (→Exile) (top)
01:50, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Akhmed Zakayev (→Exile)
01:44, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Russian Government Cabinets (top)
01:42, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Mikhail Fradkov's Second Cabinet (→External links)
01:41, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgeny Primakov's Cabinet
01:40, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet (top)
01:38, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet
01:37, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m User:Colchicum
01:34, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet
01:31, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet
01:31, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet
It is evident from my contributions page 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov
04:25, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (→External links - Do not force you POV on Stomakhin.) 
04:24, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Boris Stomakhin is not a dissident, he is a criminal) 
04:20, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (Irrelevant phrase deleted. Claims that mafia is ruling some country are ridiculous, then Clinton met russian mafia boss Eltsin? It is absurdity.) (top) 
04:18, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (Absurd - is what you write here. Aleegations are not real facts and you should correctly edit the article containing unconfirmed allegations.) (top) 
04:16, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (This is completly sourced and neutral text supported with references and good sources. Stop stalking me.) (top) 
06:17, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (→Miscellanea - Source says they are not GRU. They are under control of GRU - which is a deifferent thing. You have falsified infornation) 
06:14, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (As far as I see there are only allegations without any reliable sources) 
06:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 
06:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 
05:40, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 
05:40, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 
05:39, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 
05:25, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (Unsourced defamatory statement presenting original research removed. Biophys stop stalking me.) 
05:24, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (There are no any references. Enforcing Wikipedia policy on sources.) 
That I do not follow edits of the user Colchicum and his claims that I disrupt his edits and Wikipedia activities are false. Moreover the articles which he refers to in his support were not created by him, but by user Biophys. Therefore, user Colchicum allegations are not supported by the real facts and are fraudulent. He just tries to help his fellow Biophys there. Moreover, Colchicum invites other users who presented POV identical with him to harass me, in particular user Ilgiz - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ilgiz&diff=prev&oldid=109309046. They also try to intimidate users who are supporting me and it's going on right here on discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. Here Colchicum writes false accusations that I personally pursue him by stalking his edits which is clear lies that could be easily ascertained.
User Biophys also openly acknowledged his personal stalking of me (user Vlad fedorov) here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colchicum#Thank_you:
I cite Biophys confession published on the talk page of Colchicum:
 Please note that it perfectly appropriate to follow logs of other users. 
 We can do it. WP:STALK policy says: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been 
 coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the 
 same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or 
 distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an 
 editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean 
 reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. 
 The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." 
 Obviously, it was Vlad who disrupted our work in Wikipedia. 
 Biophys 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2)'''Accusations of Stalking'''.