Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:29 UTC, 19 February 2007), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Vlad fedorov (and his alleged sockpuppet User_talk:213.184.225.28) is engaged in a long-term wikistalking (WP:STALK) of User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Vlad fedorov has been harassing Biophys for two months (since December 18, 2006, when the Vlad fedorov account had been created) and Colchicum for several days (since February 14, 2007), allegedly being quite disruptive, and it is likely that he has never tried to touch an article that hadn't been contributed to by the aforementioned editors (see Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov). This is actually the main point. Regardless of whether his point of view was justified or not, he has been doing nothing but pursuing User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Informal resolution was attempted at the numerous talk pages and at User talk:Alex Bakharev#Vlad, but failed. Below one can find the full list of the articles User:Vlad fedorov has contributed to since December 18. Wikistalking seems quite evident from their history, as they all have been contributed to by Biophys and Colchicum prior to his attention. Colchicum 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second issue is repeated violation of WP:BLP by Vlad Fedorov. See: Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yevgenia_Albats, Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boris_Stomakhin

Third issue is uncivil behavior of Vlad Fedorov. Once he even said he would be happy if I died. See: Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#La_Russophob. He was also offensive with regard to other users. See: Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Anti-Russian_sentiment_due_to_Soviet_occupation.3F

With regard to WP:CIV violations, Vlad Fedorov received a warning from User:Alex_Bakharev, but he deleted this warning from his talk page. See this: [1]. But Vlad tells below "I have never received any warnings from administrators".

Probably the most outrageous personal offense was Vlad's claim that I "promote ethnic hatred" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74#Boris Stomakhin article and inciting of ethinic hatred). It was me who wrote about human rights, including rights of ethnic and religious minorities that are violated in Russia. It was he who tried to present human rights activists as "fascists" (see Boris Stomakhin), human right protection organizations as foreign spy agencies (see Glasnost Defence Foundation), and deleted references to people who were killed for trying to protect human rights, such as Anna Politkovskaya (see Human rights in Russia). Biophys 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

This wikistalking must be stopped. As User:Vlad fedorov has already faced warnings and short-term blocking for edit warring (see his log) and this had no effect on him, some more severe moves (blocking for several months or a year) seem to be necessary.

There is a compromise solution that would work for me 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'_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 came first and did any edits before me (whatever these edits are); and Vlad agrees do the same with regard to articles I have edited first (e.g. I can edit Putin's Russia but can not edit Sergei_Ivanov). 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. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Proposed_conflict_resolution_.28compromise.29 Biophys 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

The only activity User:Vlad fedorov has been conducting in Wikipedia is pursuing User:Biophys and User:Colchicum.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

This dispute involves thousands of edits, so only edit histories can be provided.

(This is also the full list of articles Vlad fedorov has touched)

Several simple most recent examples:

Evidence that wikistalking continues:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_1
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_2
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_3
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_4
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_5
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_6
Repeated deletion of photo of Vladimir Putin from article, Vladimir Putin legislation and program, solely for the purpose of harassing ColchicumBiophys 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 13:41, 25 February 2007 Colchicum (Talk | contribs) (Kremlin.ru is in the public domain, see Wikimedia Commons.)
(cur) (last) 06:41, 25 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (Violation of copyrights and unsupported statments deleted)
(cur) (last) 06:40, 25 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (Colchicum you have no copyright and even more you couldn't support your source with references,. You are violating copyrights.)
(cur) (last) 18:19, 24 February 2007 Colchicum (Talk | contribs) m (→First term)
(cur) (last) 17:49, 23 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv to 14:00, 16 February 2007 by Colchicum - an importnt photo that improves this article)
(cur) (last) 09:18, 17 February 2007 59.101.176.223 (Talk) (→Legislation proposed by Putin, approved by the Federal Assembly of Russia, and signed by Putin - Font size corrected)
(cur) (last) 04:06, 17 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (There is no any evidence supporting that this image is from KGB id. I wonder where is some kind of stamp on photo then?)
(cur) (last) 23:56, 16 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv to last version by Colchicum; photo is relevanant because it shows the person who reqested and approved this legislation)
(cur) (last) 20:15, 16 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (Irrelevant image deleted. By the Colchicum doesn't has any copyrights to that pricate photo.)
(cur) (last) 14:00, 16 February 2007 Colchicum (Talk | contribs) m (←Undid revision 108589859 by Vlad fedorov (talk))
(cur) (last) 12:29, 16 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (Irrelevant image removed)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_7
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Episode_8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biophys (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence that BLP violations continue

See Vlad's editing of aricle Yevgenia Albats. He inserts defamatory and not supported by any independent sources claims about Yevgenia Albats made by Arutunyan who is a side of a controversy (see Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yevgenia_Albats). Then, he uses defamatory statements made by Arutunyan to discredit another journalist Anna Politkovskaya (see his edits of this article and also Putin's Russia Biophys 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that WP:CIV violations continue:

[32]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

and more on the talk pages of the articles mentioned in the previous section.

Please note that four of these articles have been created by me, and three others I have edited extensively (from practically a stab to a real article). So, it was Vlad who attacked my edits and did wikistalking, not vice versa. Biophys 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Vf added statements to a living person's biography, Yevgenia Albats. The statements contain an accusation of fraud and bad manners.

Statements of fraud were introduced by user Ilgiz hmself here is the diff. So his accusations of me for his own wrongdoing are intentional personal attack in order to push forcibly his POV. Statemnts of uncivil behavior cited from three different reliable source which are reflected in the article, e.g. article by Oleg Kashin, article by Elena Kalashnikova et al.Vlad fedorov 08:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He later added claims of Albats losing supporters' empathy with references that did not give grounds to these claims.

Not losing supportes empathy, but criticized by the sources cited. Citation:"This article written by Yevgenia Albats was met with fierce criticism by the Jewish community[13][14] and democractic parties[15][16][17][18] for the support of fascism and nationalism and was criticized by the nationalist parties[19][20][21][22] - for provocative calls to disobey the police". This is another misrepresention of facts by Ilgiz here.Vlad fedorov 08:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later, Biophys removed most of such statements and Vf brought them back. Vf did not answer my questions on logical connections between some of the paragraphs he added and the links he provided.

Am I supposed to answer in 20 minutes from your edits?Vlad fedorov 08:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Yevgenia Albats and Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov. Despite other users' opinions that we see just a clash of "hot heads", I fail to see logical connections between Vf's additions and the links he provided in support.

It is your POV, though.Vlad fedorov 08:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to explain these connections is welcome to the above talk pages. ilgiz 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Response by user Ellol

The whole issue arises not from user's Vlad Fedorov alleged intention to disrupt Wiki and harrass users Biophys and Colchium, but is the result of impact of two different POVs on Russia and it's political system. Biophys's viewpoint (right or wrong) is that Russia is heading toward totalitarianism and Federal Security Agency is "secret police" harrassing progressively thinking people. Vlad Fedorov's viewpoint (also, right or wrong) is that modern Russia is generally democratic state, and to speak of any state-driven campaign against journalists, ethnic minorities, or any other social or professional group is not only wrong, but a total nonsense. As a proof, you can see from Biophys's statement, that he can't even accept a thought that Boris Stomakhin's views are fascists, all opposition journalists and NGO organizations are saints for him. This all causes hard talks. But as a participant of discussions at Boris Stomakhin or Human rights in Russia pages, I say that the matter can't be considered as bad conduct of user Vlad Fedorov, but instead is a two-sided issue. I recommend not to specially punish anybody, but both users involved to hear better the point of an opponent and find constructive ideas in it.

Any way, I think that under current conditions user Vlad Fedorov plays a positive social role of opposition to opposition, which after all aids to present unbiased view. ellol 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

ellol 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad fedorov 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is a fair description of the events. I want to add that while I think the "fight" between User:Biophys and Vlad Fedorov usually lead to more neutral and better referenced articles it sometimes very taxing for other participants. It would help if both sides of the conflict would think about fair representation of the other side's views instead of attempting to just muscle their POV through Alex Bakharev 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alex Bakharev. --Pan Gerwazy 16:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by user Vlad fedorov

I would like to respond the following to the accusation of Biophys:

First, users Biophys, Ilgiz 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 claiming 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 Russians with atomic explosion, to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.

Third, accusations presented here were already taken up at virtually 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, they 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 Biophys 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)

Biophys himself took his text material inserted into the article Boris Stomakhin from blog [La Russophobe]. As you could see phrases in the current article Boris Stomakhin match those found in Blog La Russophobe. It is evident that this Blog La Russophobe is inciting ethnic hatred at least. The page of that blog http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-lr-russophobe-why-arent-you.html says that you should hate russians. User:Biophys insists that we should agree on exclusion from the article of citations taken from Russian respectable newspapers which hints that Stomakhin is not really innocent peaceful dissident, but actually almost a fascist. My question for Wikipedia administrators: If Wikipedia is a proper place for publishing Russophobic statements (anti-semitic statements), inciting ethnic hatred against Russians? I understand the position of User:Cbrown1023 who doesn't want to verifiy reliability of Russian texts, but a simple search in Google on Boris Stomakhin would lead to all Russophobe sources which are published by User:Biophys in current protected version of the article on Boris Stomakhin. I am astonished that Wikipedia administrators allow to paint people like Osama bin Laden like peaceful dissidents.

Biophys refused to negotiate, he demanded to scrap all sources which may prove that Stomakhin is a fascist. Here is his message[33] and respective diffs [34], []:

Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons
explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to 
discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I have filed petition for Cabal Mediation on Boris Stomakhin article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin

Biophys is a very interesting user, who contributes only to two topics: either anti-Russian propaganda, such as Putin (Putin phallus, Putin's citations), involvement of Russian in world terrorism, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Mitrokhin archieve and etc.) where he advances only one POV - Russophobic, or Biophysics (hence that's why he had chosen his nick). He never contributes to NPOV materials and holds extreme Anti-Russian position. Initially article about Boris Stomakhin was designed by Biophys to claim violations of freedom of speech in Russia (article 'Human rights in Russia'). However after I edited this article to present another POV, he began his personal vendetta on me by reverting and deleting all other materials, because my edits had compromised his edits at the article 'Human rights in Russia'. Incidentaly, the article was edited by two Russian admins - Alex Bakharev and Mikka, but Biophys was reverting and deleting even their versions, without any hesitation.

2)Accusations of Stalking.

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.

Stalking by Biophys

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)

It could be easily seen that users Biophys and Colchicum conspired against me not because of stalking, but because my edits and contributions present other point of view, which they do not tolerate and make everything possible in order to harass and intimidate me.

Biophys also confessed in his message to me, that his articles indeed have mistakes [35], but he demanded that I should not correct his mistakes which is outrageus.

As could be seen from the following history pages, my edits are reverted or deleted by user Biophys in less than 24 hours after my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Active_measures&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 16:56, 17 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (everything was supported by refereces; this is personal attack by two partisan users) .... (cur) (last) 08:37, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - You haver to prove the 'worldwide' character) (cur) (last) 08:15, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - This statement is a blog entry and violates Wikipedia policy. The statement is also unsourced and not supported by where the citations were taken from.) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 15:07, 9 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (this is description of his books (read them!) - supported by references) (cur) (last) 07:59, 9 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (This is unsupported defamatory statement against ethnic Russians) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasnost_Defence_Foundation&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 17:33, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (cur) (last) 08:15, 18 January 2007 Khatru2 (Talk | contribs) m (→Funding - disambig) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (cur) (last) 08:12, 17 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Funding - see talk) (cur) (last) 07:52, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Funding) <cut end>

It is therefore evident, that it's not me, but Biophys traces my contributions, for it is always Biophys who reverts my edits in no more than 24 hours often without any explanations.

I have edited Freedom House article and have a nice disscussion there. But Biophys is stalking me clearly by inserting the following texts: [36], [37], [38], [39].

I would like to discuss here just the typical case. In the article dedicated to Russian security agency GRU [40], it was written that terrorist Shamil Basaev and Said-Magomed Kakiev, Said-Magomed Kakiev are 'Chechen GRU agents'. I have deleted these phrases, because there are no any evidence and sources that support these statements. Moreover, there are just allegations that Shamil Basaev was trained by some Intelleigence service long before the Chechen Conflict arised. Biophys however wrote a list of Chechen GRU agents, thereby presenting these pure allegations as established facts.

In less than 30 minutes my edits were reversed by Biophys,

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 05:18, 19 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links) (cur) (last) 04:48, 19 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Chechen GRU agents - False unsupported statements removed) <cut end>

who has cited the following source: Land of the warlords, by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian Unlimited as evidencing that Said-Magomed Kakiev and Said-Magomed Kakiev are Chechen GRU agents. However, in the article the following is written about these individuals:

"Alkhanov rang for the help of Said Magomed Kakiev", the powerful head of the "West" 
battalion of 900 Chechen fighters under the control of Russian military intelligence, the GRU.

Zair said Alkhanov has gained the support of not only Kakiev but Sulim Yamadayev, the 
head of the "East" battalion, 800 hardened special forces Chechens also under the 
control of the GRU.

It could be clearly seen that newspaper article doesn't say these individuals are GRU agents. It says just their battalions were under control of GRU which is a different thing at all. It follows therefore, that Biophys has repeatedly and intentionally reintroduced false disinformation by these edits into the article [41], [42] and [43]. And as such violated repeatedly Wikipedia policy.

This is just fresh typical example of Biophys anti-Russian activities in the Wikipedia.

Other case include:

Deletion of pertinent information from the article dedicated to Yevgenia Albats. And specifically deletion of the information that her father has been GRU spy during the WW II. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=108373818&oldid=108344491 Please note that Biophys has never actually presented his arguments on deletion of this information on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats. According to the Wikipedia policy deletion of sources material is vandalism. This information about Albats father was later reintroduced by the administrator Alex Bakharev here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=109477667&oldid=108836686. However, it was evident that the information about Albats father compromises her neutrality as a researcher appointed on Parlament commission for the investigation of KGB activitites and compromises reliability of Albats claims. That's why Biophys initiated campaign for the deletion of such material.

Biophys also claimed on the talk page that the following sources: Boorishness as a World View by Yelena Kalashnikova (in Russian) Full Albats by Oleg Kashin, business newspaper Vzgliad, October 26, 2006 (in Russian)

violate BLP policy, because they are: 1) not neutral 2) controversial 3) Allegations of crude and extremely uncivil behavior 4) Unsubstantiated accusations of fraud

However Biophys failed to show how these materials violate Wikipedia policies. There are no facts, evidence, whereabouts and so on. Again Biophys undertook the same false accusations campaign against sources and information he personaly dislikes and the same false flag campaign he was waging on the Boris Stomakhin. Just empty and unsubstantiated accusations.

I have reverted deletions by Biophys of well-sourced materials published by another author on the article Mitrokhin archive. This deletion could be seen here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitrokhin_Archive&diff=107010834&oldid=106018891 I have reinserted these well-sourced statements, since they are reliable and definitely should be mentioned in the article. I have deleted Biophys's unsourced defamatory statements on Russians as ethnicity which incite ethnic hatred in the article David Satter. Please note that Biophys reinserts unsourced statements inciting ethnic hatred by following edits cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&diff=prev&oldid=107021411. I think he should be blocked for violation of LP policies, since these statements describe David Satter as inciting ethnic hatred at least.

I would like to notice that Biophys deletes well-sourced materials not for the first time. For example Biophys has deleted good source in the article State sponsored terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=102543018&oldid=102542124 Revision as of 23:23, 22 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Biophys (Talk | contribs) /* United States - reference to blog removed, non-working reference corrected) deleted the working link to [44]. I ask you to read his comments with attention, first Biophys claims that it is a blog, and second he claims the link is broken. But how he could say it is a blog if the link is actually broken? By the way, the source is not a blog and the link always works.

Every edit is explained and supported with specific arguments. FSB cannot be described as a secret police, since this term according to the respective Wikipedia article refers to the totalitarian states. I have corrected Biophys POV to NPOV, since CIA is not described as a secret police. As to the Human Rights article, I have employed the same approach which Biophys has taken in regard to the Izvestia article in Boris Stomakhin case. Biophys uses unconfirmed allegations of Anna Politkovskaya which is said was publishing her materials without verifications and presents them as facts and not as unconfirmed allegations.Parfitt, Tom (2006-10-08). "Assassin's Bullet Kills Fiery Critic of Putin". The Observer. Retrieved 2006-10-09. Moreover, in the cited sources on Russian there are no allegations of Politkovskaya that people were detained because of their religion, while Biophys inserted these claims into the passage dedicated to the freedom of religion, which is evidently is not appropriate.

I would like to bring your attention, that I have never deleted the information which was contributed by users Biophys and Colchicum. And their claims about Stalking are actually turn everything upside down, since I do not follow tremendous number of their articles. And claims about me pursuing Colchicum are absurd, since actually he first began harassing me (Mediation case page on Boris Stomakhin) by writing everywhere about my two acknowledged mistakes, thereby violating the Wikipedia rule that editors do not discuss personalities and discuss the articles and sources.

3)Allegations of uncivil behaviour.

I would like to notice that in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#La_Russophob, Biophys behaved himself incivil, and I never wished him to die actually. Biophys wrote 'Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia?'. Considering that Biophys wrote offensively in regard of Putin, I have responded the following way: 'The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too'. I don't find such exchange to be offensive, since Biophys first began 'death' assumptions.

This situation also concerns attepmts of Biophys to introduce defamatory claims of Russian journalist who was sentenced for his libelous and defamatory claims in regard of Putin into the article on [Phallus] cur [45]. Moreover, in order to abuse Putin he published this material deleted from the articles on Vladimir Putin and Phallus on his personal talk page, as well as his deleted article on the blog La Russophobe.

Later in order to hide information compromising him he deleted this material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=107095030 the edit which he called clean-up.

Moreover, Biophys openly hinted on me as an agent of KGB working in the internet here [46]. He called me a troll on my talk page[47] and therefore personaly attacked me too.

User Biophys maintains speculatory article about FSB brigades working in the internet on his talk page in order to send the message to and to harass everyone who has POV different from his. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biophys. Recently he has published alleged features of FSB brigades agents working in the internet diff here [48]. Later he deleted it from his talk page diff [49]. He also created a page Persecution of political bloggers where he called this speculatory FSB internet team - 'troll squads', diff [50].

Summary

User Biophys and user Colchicum wage false accusations camapaign against me in order to punish me for presenting my POV in the articles which they feel are important for them. In order to disrupt my work, intimidate and harrass me, they accuse me of violating virtually everything in the Wikipedia and persistently publish their accusations on Administrators Incident Noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, BPL noticeboard. They persistently complain to the administrators urging them to punish me. All this is done with one goal - to silence individuals having other opinion, to punish those who correct their intentional mistakes and malicious disinformation.

I would like to bring to the attention that all of the disputes cited in the accusations of Biophys and Colchicum were published on the respective noticeboards and administrators pages. The problem is that no one has directly ruled that Biophys and Colchicum accuse me falsely. The issues which they complain here were taken by the administrator Alex Bakharev on his talk page.

Users Biophys and Colchicum actual reason for my public prosection is that I present the point of view they personally dislike and do not tolerate. There is no any evidence that I disrupt their work by creating annoyance or distress. It is my POV that creates 'annoyance or distress' for Biophys and Colchicum.

As could also be seen, users Biophys and Colchicum never tried to resolve any disputes with me. All they have done is false accusations and deletions of my contributions to the respective articles.

It is evident that users Biophys and Colchicum claim that any material (sourced and referenced) which contradicts to their personal opinion is violating Wikipedia policies.

User Biophys also publicly confessed that he actually stalks me. And therefore, it is evident that Biophys himself violates Wikipedia policies and makes fraudulent accusations.

I would like to ask anyone here in Wikipedia to review all the pertinent materials to this dispute in detail, and not to consider surface accusations of the users who brought the complain against me. I could be contacted any time on my talk page and could provide any information that is needed to handle this case or others in which I am involved.

I would also like anyone here to ask the administrators User:Alex Bakharev and User:Mikkalai, about these disputes, since they were observing this dispute from its very beginning and were themselves editing the articles on which this duo complains.

Desired outcome

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 and threats, then they should create their own encyclopedia where they could do whatever they want without other users disturbing them by other point of views.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by xyzzy_n

While my point of view is limited to the events at and around the Boris Stomakhin article, I feel confident about the following.

Biophys and Vlad have strong views on Russian politics and edit primarily articles on Russian politics. Both have made no attempts to curb their bias. Both are fond of edit warring. Despite some pretence to the contrary, neither one seriously wants to compromise. Both have poor understanding of the preferred way of working on Wikipedia—by finding consensus—and instead use the system and policies to push their respective POV. In particular, I do not think that Biophys was really enforcing WP:BLP.

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.

Since apparently everything has already been cited as evidence, I shall only cite one gem:

I think we should have a really long cooling off period.
— [51]: Biophys, after his version of the article was protected.

Users who endorse this summary:

—xyzzy_n 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--AVIosad^(talk) 11:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alex Bakharev

Users Vlad fedorov and Biophys are clearly have different points of view. One is usually pro-Putin, while the other is anti-Putin. Both are hardworking editors but incline sometimes to use to use suspicious sources. I think that in general having opposing points of view they check each other's biases. Often result of their collective work are well balanced and well sourced articles (like Anna Politkovskaya). On the other hand both are mild to moderate tendentious editors, sometimes the article just go into a sterile edit war without much progress toward a compromise on either side. It is frustrating and I do not see any simple way out of it, maybe we should launch a number of article RfCs on each point of difference.

Both sides sometimes violate WP:NPA or WP:CIV, e.g. by labelling each other's edits as vandalism, while they are clearily are content disputes. I once gave Vlad fedorov a warning for a such an attack. Still I think that their communication is reasonably civil taken into account the emotions they may feel to each other. My personal opinion is that WP:BLP is often misused there. The policy was introduced for the cases like this, there an editor inserts a damning information (drugs, beating wives and children, suspected crimes, collaboration with aliens, you name it) gotten from the hearses, yellow press and internet forums. E.g. in the case of Albats and Arutyunyan nobody denies that the show took places and people have mixed feelings: some praise it, some damn it. The question is to give a fair go on the opinions of both parties of the conflict, WP:BLP has almost nothing with it.

Regarding WP:STALK I have a mixed feelings. I am almost sure that Vlad does not stalk User:Colchicum. Colchicum was probably the most productive editor of 2007. He started many articles, many excellent, some undersourced (been on the cutting edge of the politics), some somehow biased. Many of this articles are on my watchlist. Vlad certainly did not interfere with the most of it. Vlad certainly has a lot of articles commonly edited with Biophys. I would not be surprised if some of them he has found by reviewing Biophys's contributions. Still I am not convinced that he edited the articles so to harass Biophys: all of reverted or altered Biophys's edits are within Vlad's interests and Vlad's concerns are obvious and I guess genuine.

I would recommend to both warring editors to try to reach some compromise and to try to get room for the opposing point of views do not involve in soapboxing and not to transfer Wikipedia into a battleground. All other people please contribute to the articles under dispute trying to get room for all the different points of view Alex Bakharev 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--Pan Gerwazy 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Piotrus

I cannot agree with Biophys that The only activity User:Vlad fedorov has been conducting in Wikipedia is pursuing User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. First, playing devils' advocate, some of Vlads contribs are unrelated to you two (ex. Institute of National Remembrance, Katyn massacre), and second, he occasionally adds good information to article (ex. on the IPN article at least about 1/3 of his text is likely to be kept, after some rewriting for npov, style and structure). That said, I have seen enough of incivility, personal attacks, bad faith assumption, stalking (or you two and recenently of other people, too) and 3RR warring, to agree that unless Vlad significantly changes his behaviour, his contributions to this project are much more negative than positive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.