Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov

message: ellol, as you have not been directly involved, could you please move your comment from "Response" to "Outside view"?
Besides, the main point is not about whether Vlad is right or wrong. The main point is that he does nothing but follows our edits. To my opinion, this is wikistaliking at any rate, and very disruptive, as this discourages us from editing Wikipedia.
I wouldn't even object if Vlad edited Wikipedia according to his point of view and didn't follow us, but after two months I can hardly believe that it is possible. We meet him daily, and he has done virtually no edit in the articles that we hadn't contributed to before. It is a very technical matter whether he has any other edits or he hasn't. And he hasn't. Colchicum 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please note that this issue is not bilateral. We have never stalked Vlad. I.e. there are articles that have been edited or created by us only, there are articles that have been created or edited by us and then edited by him, but so far there has been not a single article created by him or edited by him before us. Colchicum 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ellol

message: First, users Biophys, Ilgiz and Colchicum never contacted me on a Talk page and tried to resolve the dispute.
The contacts are not required to happen on the user's talk page. There have been plenty of them on other talk pages, and Vlad is perfectly aware of this, as he has responded to them. With no consensus, as usual. Colchicum 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re to Vlad

message: ===Episode 1===
I corrected the transliteration of the name of Yevgenia Albats' father , but Vlad fedorov reverted my edits with the following summary: "rv - deletions of information which Ilgiz and Colchicum personally dislike. Deletion of sourced material is a violation of Wikipedia policies and vandalism." . Colchicum 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So he doesn't even look at what he is going to revert. He just reverts every edit. Colchicum 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that my revertion is explained in detail. I post it right here: Revision as of 06:13, 22 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs)  (rv - deletions of information which Ilgiz and Colchicum personally dislike. Deletion of sourced material is a violation of Wikipedia policies and vandalism. Do not copy my accusations and present them like your accusations. Vlad fedorov 07:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rakhamnkov who wrote the article about Putin's penis is not a blogger. I just confused him with Trepashkin. Rakhmankov is not a blogger. So my deletion was right. Again false accusations by Biophys and Colchicum.Vlad fedorov 07:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Rakhamnkov "is not a journalist" and he "is not a blogger". Then who is he? But regardless to that, you reverted my changes several times saying nonsense "Trepashkin is a journalist", instead of "Rakhmankov is not a blogger" which is something debatable. The problem is: you did that kind of things many times in other articles, and this is exactly wikistalking. Biophys 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone could go and see that Biophys inserts unssuported with references texts. Please everyone go there and see yourself. Moreover I revert to the version of administrator Mikkalai who has edited Biophys POV's. Again epmty and false accusation. Vlad fedorov 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Everyone can see that I inserted the following references: . Both are official statements/presentations  by official representatives of this human rights organization, one of them in US congress. I provided my arguments in the talk page of UCSJ article, and explained why this citation is so important (everyone can take a look at the provided references and decide if they are important). Mikkalai answered nothing. I respect him greatly; he made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia; I can discuss anything with him. Biophys 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have referenced this text to Mitrokhin archive, so I just clarified source.Vlad fedorov 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the references lead to allegations.Vlad fedorov 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikistalking is your deletions of my clarifications of sources.Vlad fedorov 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is pretty much helpful, because it identifies sources of the information you insert in the article trying to make the readers believe that all that you wrote are the facts and not alegations.Vlad fedorov 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can simply compare two versions of article Active measures and see if Vlad  editing improves this article or quite the opposite. Certainly, this article is not perfect at all, but it is easy to distinguish "good faith" and "bad faith" efforts, at least in this case.Biophys 16:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly it is editing of your POV and attempts to misrepresent the current sentence. You just present the POV of one man as true, and everything else, including court sentence is wrong and false accroding to Biophys. Again epmty adn false accusation.Vlad fedorov 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cite defamation of late Anna Politkovskaya by a person without good journalist credentials (Arutunayn), which was allegedly ordered by the Putin administration. Yevgenia Albats who made such allegation also became an object of another defamation campaign ordered from "above". It is my personal impression that you are enforcing this defamation campaign of Anna Politkovskaya  and Yevgenia Albats in Wikipedia (see your own edits).Biophys 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have inserted pretty much relevant information about reliablity of Politkovskaya works. All sources are referenced. So if you call it 'defamation' - it is just your POV, which you could have of course.Vlad fedorov 07:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is article about BOOK. Instead of writing about book, your write about author, although there is a separate article about Anna Politkovskaya. In the article about "War and peace", there is no need to write about Leo Tolstoy. Colchium and me explained this at the talk page. You did not provide any valid counter-arguments, but repeatedly revert our changes. This is wikistalking. Biophys 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New episodes of wikistalking by Vlad

message: I corrected the transliteration of the name of Yevgenia Albats' father , but Vlad fedorov reverted my edits with the following summary: "rv - deletions of information which Ilgiz and Colchicum personally dislike. Deletion of sourced material is a violation of Wikipedia policies and vandalism." . Colchicum 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So he doesn't even look at what he is going to revert. He just reverts every edit. Colchicum 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that my revertion is explained in detail. I post it right here: Revision as of 06:13, 22 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs)  (rv - deletions of information which Ilgiz and Colchicum personally dislike. Deletion of sourced material is a violation of Wikipedia policies and vandalism. Do not copy my accusations and present them like your accusations. Vlad fedorov 07:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 1

message: Vlad also continue deleting a perfectly sourced text from my recent article Persecution of political bloggers claiming nonsense: "rv - because Trepashkin is a journalist, not political blogger, as to FSB internet teams - it is not reliable source". As everyone can see, Mikhail Trepashkin is not related to this text at all. Moreover, all cited sources are perfectly reliable. One source in question is an internet journal with editorial oversight; all articles are signed and dated; this particular article was written by known journalists, one of whom is a former assistant of Galina Starovoitova; and I even provided English translation of this article (at the talk page). Obviously, Vlad continues  wikistalking right now. Biophys 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rakhamnkov who wrote the article about Putin's penis is not a blogger. I just confused him with Trepashkin. Rakhmankov is not a blogger. So my deletion was right. Again false accusations by Biophys and Colchicum.Vlad fedorov 07:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Rakhamnkov "is not a journalist" and he "is not a blogger". Then who is he? But regardless to that, you reverted my changes several times saying nonsense "Trepashkin is a journalist", instead of "Rakhmankov is not a blogger" which is something debatable. The problem is: you did that kind of things many times in other articles, and this is exactly wikistalking. Biophys 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 2

message: Vlad continue deleting perfectly sourced official statements made by Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, where this organization condemns persecution of ethnic minorities in Russia.  I explained at the talk page why these statements are important. Vlad simply ignores this. Biophys 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone could go and see that Biophys inserts unssuported with references texts. Please everyone go there and see yourself. Moreover I revert to the version of administrator Mikkalai who has edited Biophys POV's. Again epmty and false accusation. Vlad fedorov 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Everyone can see that I inserted the following references: . Both are official statements/presentations  by official representatives of this human rights organization, one of them in US congress. I provided my arguments in the talk page of UCSJ article, and explained why this citation is so important (everyone can take a look at the provided references and decide if they are important). Mikkalai answered nothing. I respect him greatly; he made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia; I can discuss anything with him. Biophys 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 3

message: See Vlad editing of article Active measures that I have developed from stab level. 
He writes in the first phrase: " Active Measures, according to the allegations of Mitrokhin Archive, are a form of political warfare conducted by 
by the Soviet and Russian state security and intelligence services" instead of 
"Active Measures are a form of political warfare conducted...". First, this is not an "allegation" but definition. Second, it is taken from a published book. Third, this definition has absolutely nothing to do with Mitrokhin archive. But Vlad has reverted this sentence many times! 
Vlad inserts words "according to allegations..." at the beginning of each phrase, so the article is impossible to read (but all the references have been provided by me). He includes  in the cases where references are included.
Obviously, this is typical wikistalking that completely disrupts my work in Wikipedia! I can not negotiate with Vlad about every such nonsense he is doing. I can only revert his changes. Do not you see? That is all my complaints are about.
Almost all his comments are like that. This is not helpful but disruptive. 
Biophys 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have referenced this text to Mitrokhin archive, so I just clarified source.Vlad fedorov 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the references lead to allegations.Vlad fedorov 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikistalking is your deletions of my clarifications of sources.Vlad fedorov 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is pretty much helpful, because it identifies sources of the information you insert in the article trying to make the readers believe that all that you wrote are the facts and not alegations.Vlad fedorov 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can simply compare two versions of article Active measures and see if Vlad  editing improves this article or quite the opposite. Certainly, this article is not perfect at all, but it is easy to distinguish "good faith" and "bad faith" efforts, at least in this case.Biophys 16:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 4

message: Please take a look at Vlad's editing of article Anna Politkovskaya. Clearly, this is a personal attack to defame this murdered journalist using unreliable sources. Biophys 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it is editing of your POV and attempts to misrepresent the current sentence. You just present the POV of one man as true, and everything else, including court sentence is wrong and false accroding to Biophys. Again epmty adn false accusation.Vlad fedorov 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cite defamation of late Anna Politkovskaya by a person without good journalist credentials (Arutunayn), which was allegedly ordered by the Putin administration. Yevgenia Albats who made such allegation also became an object of another defamation campaign ordered from "above". It is my personal impression that you are enforcing this defamation campaign of Anna Politkovskaya  and Yevgenia Albats in Wikipedia (see your own edits).Biophys 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 5

message: Take a look at Putin's Russia by Anna Politkovskaya. Vlad inserted a text that defames book's author, rather than discuss anything about this BOOK. I explained several times at the article's talk page that only criticism of the BOOK is relevant. Not only his editing is POV and defamatory, but it is also completely irrelevant to the subject of the article (the book). I provided a couple of links to critical reviews of the book, but Vlad ignored it and deleted one of the provided references.Biophys 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted pretty much relevant information about reliablity of Politkovskaya works. All sources are referenced. So if you call it 'defamation' - it is just your POV, which you could have of course.Vlad fedorov 07:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is article about BOOK. Instead of writing about book, your write about author, although there is a separate article about Anna Politkovskaya. In the article about "War and peace", there is no need to write about Leo Tolstoy. Colchium and me explained this at the talk page. You did not provide any valid counter-arguments, but repeatedly revert our changes. This is wikistalking. Biophys 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 6

message: Vlad repeatedly deletes description of content of David Satter books. See    
. Vlad claims that text is "offensive for Russian nation". It is irrelevant if the text offensive or not. It correctly describes the content of the books. Certainly it is not offensive, because author writes about Soviet or Russian citizens, not about an ethnic group. I explained this to Vlad several times in talk page, but he does not care. Obviously, this is wikistalking. 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 7

message: Vlad attacks my new article Gang from Lubyanka - a book by Aleksander Litvinenko. I am trying to say a phrase about the content of the book. He does not allow me, telling nonsense:  "You can describe facts, and pretend allegations. Grammar Biophys, grammar." See 
Biophys 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 8

message: Vlad repeatedly removes a segment about Chechnya from article Active measures, although it is supported by 15 reliable references, and it is exactly about the subject. He even removed segments with textbook examples of Leon Trotsky and Georgi Markov claiming that "Political assassinations - Please cite sources, these people were killed earlier than KGB was born" in article Active measures. He said that about murder of Georgi Markov organized by KGB and described in all detail by Oleg Kalugin and Oleg Gordievsky! This is nonsense again. Obviously, such activities can have only one goal: to make my work in Wikipedia impossible. Biophys 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 9

message: (I mean this statement: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Response_by_user_Ellol)
We alleged that Vlad violates  WP:STALK, WP:BLP, and WP:CIV policies. This statement says absolutely nothing about that. Instead, it says that our dispute is only between two users. This is obviously incorrect. It involves Colchicum and me from one side, and Vlad from the other side.  
I would like to note that User:ellol  is not a neutral side. He tried to delete references to Anna Politkovskaya from article Human rights in Russia See: (16:04, 21 December 2006 Ellol (Talk | contribs) m (→Political prisoners and detainees - Oh Gosh -- again GULAG? -- kids, when you'll grow up?!). Together, with Vlad they did POV editing of this article. Just as we speak, User:ellol deleted from Human rights in Russia some statements of Sergey Kovalev, a member of Moscow Helsinki Group and former Ombudsman of Russia. Instead, he left statements by Vladimir Lukin, a state official appointed by Putin's administration.
::Users Biophys and Ilgiz are not neutral parties too, so what's your problem Biophys?Vlad fedorov 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to [[User:ellol]] (statement signed by Alex Bakharev)

message: No statements of Biophys were signed by Alex Bakharev. Maybe we should ask Alex Bakharev himself?Vlad fedorov 04:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I looked at project page and have seen your sign. Thanks Alex. Please, note that Biophys now inserts Putin Phallus at Political Bloggers article, which is weird since Rachmankov wasn't a blogger.Vlad fedorov 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims about Alex Bakharev 

message: Administrator physicq made the following suggestion:
"I'm going to have to ask both to step back from the article and from each other", see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive74#Boris_Stomakhin_article_and_inciting_of_ethinic_hatred. So, we can simply follows his advice and stay away from each other's edits. 
It means the following: I agree do not edit any articles where Vlad did any edits before me (whatever these edits are); and Vlad agrees to do the same with regard to articles I have edited. It is very easy to check who of us edited each article first. Same thing with Colchicum. Such decision treats Vlad and me completely equally. There are thousands of other articles in Wikipedia to edit. 
Alex, I also would like to listen your opinion about this. If you disagree for any reason, we could discuss this proposal first with you and then with Vlad (so you could be a mediator if you agree). With great respect, Biophys 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason you claim this now is because Mediation case on Boris Stomakhin turned against you. Moreover Biophys wants that mediator endorse him with censors rights. Certainly he wants to abuse me more and more, and to harass me. If you Alex would respond to him, he would consider it as a cessation (conveyance) of administrators rights to him.Vlad fedorov 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How could I "abuse" you if we would not interfere in WP any more? To the contrary, no one of us would be abused this way.  What I suggested is the easiest way to minimize distraction.Biophys 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed conflict resolution (compromise) 

message: Alex, I disagree, but this is not the point. The point is: we want to find some practical solution without arbitration if possible. What I proposed above is the easiest practical solution. Vlad completely blocked my work in Wikipedia and made significant damage to work of Colchicum who is probably the best editor on modern Russian history at the moment, in my opinion (Colchicum spent a lot of time to file this claim, and it is for him to decide was his work damaged by Vlad or not). 
Please take a look at the examples of "Episodes" described above at this page. One can go through many articles and see numerous examples of obvious and clear wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov. One can also take a look at Vlad's edits of Colchicum's articles, such as deleting of Putin's photo from article  Vladimir Putin legislation and program. Obviously, that is wikistalking of us both. Otherwise, Colchicum would never filed this complaint. Biophys 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False and empty accusations. I have deleted photo of Putin because it claimed it is from its KGB ID, which is a false fact, because photos for ID's bear stamps and are taken not of the whole man, just head and shoulders. Colchicum lied when he wrote that it is a photo from Putin id. Moreover, I highly doubt if Colchicum has copyrights to publish this photo in Wikipedia. Could Colchicum present here source from which he has taken this photo and evidence that he has proper copyrights on it?Vlad fedorov 06:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Outside_view_by_Alex_Bakharev]]

message: xyzzy_n said: "I feel that both users’ purpose here is not to write an encyclopaedia conforming to the core content policies but to make articles on Russian politics conform to their own political views." Yes, I partially agree with him. He is right with regard to Vlad (and this is relevant because we discuss Vlad here). However, I would like to argue that he is not quite fair about me (although this might be not relevant to this Request for comments).  
First, I have created a number of articles in Wikipedia and worked seriously on many others. Half of these articles are science, not history or politics. All these articles are well sourced (I often provide 30-60 references), so there is no much place for POV. Therefore, I did not come to Wikipdeia to promote my personal views. Yes, I have certain views as everyone else, but main point is to produce good verifiable articles. I am working very seriously with sources. I invite anyone but Vlad to look at the articles that I have created or extensively edited and improve them. Vlad created no articles. The only thing he did is wikistalking, especially when  Stomakhin article was locked (just as  Colchicum said - so this is not only my point; it was not me who brought this complaint here).    
Second, I negotiated probably with at least 50 Wikipedia users (including people who are "pro-Putin"), and never had any problems with them except Vlad.  
Third, xyzzy_n claims that I did not actually try to enforce BLP policy. Yes, I did. Take a look here Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy and judge yourself. Yes, I do have a bias toward writing non-offensive biographies of any living people whoever they are. So far, I was involved in four disputes   of that kind on biographies of Sergei Kovalev, Boris Stomakhin, Yevgenia Albats and Mansoor Ijaz (he is also on the living person's notice board). You can check were my actions fair or not (I only asked everyone to provide a reliable source) . I had problems only in two cases Boris Stomakhin and  Yevgenia Albats where Vlad intervene.  Also note that I edited biography of Valentin Korabelnikov, a GRU boss who allegedly organized Russian apartment bombings. Note, that I did not write a single critical word about him, because this is BLP.  
Fourth, everyone can take a look at Talk:Boris_Stomakhin article and see that I actually tried to establish some civilized rules for this discussion after this article was locked. See this: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Setting_the_rules. I said there: "Let's have 3-day cooling off period." Vlad Fedorov rejected these rules. No surprisingly, we could not have a civilized and productive discussion. Still, I made a significant effort to negotiate with ellol and Vlad even when Vlad rejected these rules.Biophys 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the first and second point, I did not go through your contributions. If you have other areas of interest, why not just step away from Russian politics? On the third point, your understanding of WP:BLP is flawed. It does not imply hagiography but merely asks that articles about living people should be well sourced. On the fourth point, as anyone can see on that talk page, instead of trying to resolve the dispute quickly, you used stall tactics. With that, and also Vlad’s behaviour, in mind, my view is biased against both of you. —xyzzyn 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are reading my mind. I just would like to step away from Russian politics. But I have done some hard work there. Therefore, I can not allow Vlad to destroy all my work. Of course, there are many other people who are doing editing of the same articles (see for example, Anatoliy Golitsyn or editing of FSB by everyone except Vlad); but those are "good faith" edits (I even made once a change in response to a "simple vandalism" - but this "vandal" actually had a valid point - one of my statements was unsourced, so I deleted the statement, but Vlad restored it back - in Anatoliy Golitsyn). That is why I suggested "Proposed conflict resolution (compromise)" above. That would allow me to do something different. Is that "compromise" reasonable? Biophys 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As on the third point (WP:BLP), I disagree. Not only sources should be reliable, but the article must be NPOV according to WP:BLP rules, and that was one of major problems with Boris Stomakhin article. Biophys 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boris Stomakhin is a criminal sentenced by the court. If you consider him innocent or defamed, please refer this matter to the court, otherwise do not pretend you are objective, or that your POV is objective - it is original research. If we are to judge by your criteria, we should also consider Osama Bin Laden innocent disident who is defamed by Western Media and Western Governments. I am not forcing you to give up your POV on Stomakhin, but the problem you delete other POV and try to make all to belive that majority thinks Stomakhin is dissident, while Russian blogs, forums and messageboards are full of description of Stomakhin as jackass and idiot. Here is on Russian just some links at which Stomakhin is called at least idiot: http://forum.cofe.ru/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90192, http://forum.cofe.ru/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90192&pagenumber=2, http://www.jsotech.com/index.php?showtopic=7124&pid=216279&mode=threaded&start=, http://lj.rossia.org/users/kouzdra/101804.html,  http://www.forum.tiraspol.net/topicView.aspx?topicID=2840, http://www.specnaz.ru/comments2.phtml?id=652, http://komissarov.livejournal.com/385943.html, http://www.forum-tvs.ru/lofiversion/index.php?t3001.html, http://punk.antifa.ru/yforum/showthread.php?t=2465&page=5, http://dirty.ru/comments/124389, http://forum.memo.ru/index.php?t=msg&th=562&start=120&S=87c475b413fe4b1afcb2be07020d8679, http://vnovodvorskaia.livejournal.com/64239.html, http://timt.livejournal.com/114321.html, http://5h00.livejournal.com/tag/dorks, http://forum.median.ru/viewtopic.php?t=13584&sid=3e33de1895082525dbe266e450e0cf3d, http://shoo.count0.ru/2006/12/07/mitsgol-vsyo/feed/, http://www.radikaly.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=953&view=previous&sid=8366c0767b70a22252614293e859e030, http://www.gambler.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=466841&st=120, http://www.securitylab.ru/news/277392.php?PAGEN_1=3&phrase_id=24552, http://warrax.net/55/ru_unhuman_02.html, http://mehanik-kb.livejournal.com/, http://andvari-loki.livejournal.com/66183.html, http://lovemix.ru/showthread.php?t=3814&page=23.
Attempts by Biophys to present Stomakhin as a dissident is called violations of NPOV Wikipedia policy.Vlad fedorov 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See my reply to this in next chapter.Biophys 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Outside_view_by_xyzzy_n]]

message: One thing about WP:BLP rules. I believe the most immoral thing we can do in Wikipedia is a defamation of a living person who does not deserve it. And it is especially the case if this person (say Boris Stomakhin) has been unjustly arrested and sent to prison with broken bones, according to CPJ, ARTICLE 19, and Vladimir Bukovsky. I guess this is our biggest disagreement with Vlad Fedorov who is working to defame people who were killed for defending human rights (see his edits of Anna Politkovskaya and Putin's Russia). Yes, we do have serious disagreements with Vlad. But these are disagreements of moral values. That is why we can not reconciliate. Biophys 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boris Stomakhin is a criminal sentenced by the court. If you consider him innocent or defamed, please refer this matter to the court, otherwise do not pretend you are objective, or that your POV is objective - it is original research. If we are to judge by your criteria, we should also consider Osama Bin Laden innocent disident who is defamed by Western Media and Western Governments. I am not forcing you to give up your POV on Stomakhin, but the problem you delete other POV and try to make all to belive that majority thinks Stomakhin is dissident, while Russian blogs, forums and messageboards are full of description of Stomakhin as jackass and idiot. Here is on Russian just some links at which Stomakhin is called at least idiot: http://forum.cofe.ru/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90192, http://forum.cofe.ru/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90192&pagenumber=2, http://www.jsotech.com/index.php?showtopic=7124&pid=216279&mode=threaded&start=, http://lj.rossia.org/users/kouzdra/101804.html,  http://www.forum.tiraspol.net/topicView.aspx?topicID=2840, http://www.specnaz.ru/comments2.phtml?id=652, http://komissarov.livejournal.com/385943.html, http://www.forum-tvs.ru/lofiversion/index.php?t3001.html, http://punk.antifa.ru/yforum/showthread.php?t=2465&page=5, http://dirty.ru/comments/124389, http://forum.memo.ru/index.php?t=msg&th=562&start=120&S=87c475b413fe4b1afcb2be07020d8679, http://vnovodvorskaia.livejournal.com/64239.html, http://timt.livejournal.com/114321.html, http://5h00.livejournal.com/tag/dorks, http://forum.median.ru/viewtopic.php?t=13584&sid=3e33de1895082525dbe266e450e0cf3d, http://shoo.count0.ru/2006/12/07/mitsgol-vsyo/feed/, http://www.radikaly.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=953&view=previous&sid=8366c0767b70a22252614293e859e030, http://www.gambler.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=466841&st=120, http://www.securitylab.ru/news/277392.php?PAGEN_1=3&phrase_id=24552, http://warrax.net/55/ru_unhuman_02.html, http://mehanik-kb.livejournal.com/, http://andvari-loki.livejournal.com/66183.html, http://lovemix.ru/showthread.php?t=3814&page=23.
Attempts by Biophys to present Stomakhin as a dissident is called violations of NPOV Wikipedia policy.Vlad fedorov 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: First, this is all irrelevant, since we discuss Vlad here, not Stomakhin or me. Second, I have never defended any terrorrists. I am strongly against any violence.  But Stomakhin was prosecuted for free speech according to CPJ, ARTICLE 19 and all human rights activists, such as Vladimir Bukovsky (he did not do and did not plan to do anything violent according even to his court sentence). This is not my opinion, this is not OR. Since he has been prosecuted by Putin's government, there is a huge defamation campaign about him in Russian state-controlled media (exactly as it was against all Soviet dissidents in the past). Vlad simply wants to enforce this defamation campaign here, in Wikipedia, in my opinion Biophys 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we disagree with Vlad