Talk:Glasnost Defense Foundation

message: Biophys, please write why you treat this organization as a leading in protection of freedom of expression in Russian Federation and provide sources to your explanation.Vlad fedorov 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading NGO

message: Biophys, please explain why the information of Reporters Without Borders  is relevant to this article.Vlad fedorov 12:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating by Reporters Without Borders

message: I think that organization which is financed by such governmental agencies as embassies and National Endowment for Democracy can't be named non-governmental organization. This critical information should be present in the article, especially when they publish it themselves.
: Most NGOs in US and other countries are funded like that. It is fine to say about the sources of funding. But the exact figures in dollars from each source during the last year are hardly relevant and interesting for a reader of Wikipedia. Biophys 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you say: "However, there is no information on the origin and volume of these donations. There is also no public report of spending its budget, although on its web-site Glasnost Defense Foundation vows to report publicly for spending "any single pence". But they are probably audited as any other officially registered NGO. To say what you are saying, one need to provide a reference that they are not audited. Biophys 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have no access to their public reports, then they have no public report. Audit and public report are two quite different things. Read the dictionary on these two words. What I bring to the attention of the readers is that the organization which is financed by foreign governments is not an NGO, it can't be called non-governmental. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  You may be technically right. This is probably non-profit organization. Biophys 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  CIA is also non-profit organization, as well as FBI and stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Financing

message: First, all (or almost all) sources are private. Embassies do not fund anything. Second, there are many governmental (or US Congress) funded organizations, such as Radio Free Europe, National Institutes of Health in US, etc. It does not mean there are any conflicts of interest. One need some grounds to claim that and explain what exactly the conflict is. Biophys 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to prove that the funds existing in the embassies are not governmental. National Endowment for Democracy is a state organization in the US. You have to study the topic prior to editing the article.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one proves anything here. But we must explain what exactly the accusations are, and support these accusations by a reference. Otherwise, this is original research. Biophys 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't need to explain anything and I don't need to prove anything. I have included information that Glastnost Defense Foundation is sponcored by National Endowment for Democracy (de facto governmental federal body of the US) which is known to be sponsoring revolutionary and liberation movements for the favor of the US government. They are US guided clowns, and not human rights activists. Just live with it.Vlad fedorov 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What conflict of interest?

message: I have removed the clause that all financing comes from abroad as it contradicts the stated source :
Также бюджетные поступления Фонда защиты гласности включают в себя благотворительные взносы от средств массовой информации России и дальнего зарубежья, других организаций, частных лиц. 
I still have seen a reference to a publication accusing GDF in the conflict of interest. If it is only our own guesses that significant foreign financing means conflict then it is an original research.
I guess the long fragment about NED should emphasize the USA-government control over GFD, still it better be shorten or moved to the NED page Alex Bakharev 08:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O'K, I made this shorter. The point has been made. All funding sources of NED are explained in the article about NED. Still, one has to explain what conflict of interests we are talking about and justify this conflict by a reference. Biophys 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You just deleted everything. I have restored everything until someone other will do a neutral rewriting containing all points relevant to Glastnost Defense Foundation.Vlad fedorov 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is much shorter and better now. But I thought that Embassies do not fund anyone.  Do they? Biophys 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Financing

message: This is an article about human rights organization. It is fine to describe its activities and sources of finding. But the present version is was made POV by focusing on a completely different US organization. Biophys 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has pertinent information about reliability of this organization financed by foreign government. 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: Misrepresentation

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'''.

message: I beg anyone competent to take measures in order to stop users Biophys and Colchicum from persistent and continued campaign waged by them against me. I am not a witch and Wikipedia is not a witch trial place. If they couldn't tolerate opinion of other users and if they can't held disputes over the edits by means other than Complaints, then should create their own ecyclopedia where they could do whatever they want without other users disturbing them by other point of views.Vlad fedorov 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Desired outcome

message: I would like to reintroduce sources of financing of Glastnost Defense Foundation. And I would like to have respective sums published on their website to be reintroduced. This information is pertinent to the Foundation and people have the right to know that this Foundation is sponscored by the US Congress and foreign embassies. I agree on Mikkalai version of the article.Vlad fedorov 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negotiation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glasnost Defense Foundation. 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/20070927212317/http://www.gdf.ru/digest/digest/digest312e.shtml to http://www.gdf.ru/digest/digest/digest312e.shtml
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) 17:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glasnost Defense Foundation. 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/20070927212328/http://www.gdf.ru/arh/mort/2006.shtml to http://www.gdf.ru/arh/mort/2006.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807105834/http://www.gdf.ru/monitor/2005/2005.shtml to http://www.gdf.ru/monitor/2005/2005.shtml
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) 07:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified