Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin
Status	Closed
Requestor	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Diez2
Comment	sent to Mediation Committee

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 2 How can we move forward 3 Sub-page created 4 Sent to Mediation committee

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Vlad fedorov 06:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Boris Stomakhin, Talk:Boris_Stomakhin

Who's involved?

Biophys, Vlad fedorov

What's going on?

Biophys removed sourced material from the article claiming that they are poorly sourced, contradict to LP policy, that they are defamatory, controversial and etc. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strongly 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 a conspiracy against him by Russian government. Biophys 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 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. Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhin article was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. User:Biophys refuses to negotiate and to make any changes. Instead he forces removal of all sources which present another POV. The example of this is the following:

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)

Also Biophys openly hinted on me as an agent of KGB working in the internet. called me a troll on my talk page and therefore personaly attacked me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Further_actions However the main reason is that my edits are properly sourced and present fairly another POV which Biophys deleted from the article completly.

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.

I was arbitrarily blocked by English-speaking admin but not for violating 3RR rule, but allegedly for the violation of LP. However, it is ridiculous that English speaking admin could estimate violation of LP policy on Russian sources. Moreover, I was blocked not for reverting, but because the version to which I was reverting the article contained three sentences which lacked references in their ends. All thess references were supported later by the corresponding sources. Other admins told to admin who blocked me that their own articles lack far more sources than mine.

I would like also to note for that Biophys has recently deleted information compromising him from his user page and specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=107095030 -- his deleted article on blog La Russophobe, Russian stereotypes, Putin phallus, and etc. Why he deletes such information? Maybe he's afraid of something?

What would you like to change about that?

1. I would like to reintroduce in the article deleted opinion of journalists and reporters from respectable Russian newspapers which present another point of view on Stomakhin and his activities. The article is full with statements from the other POV-holders.
2. I would like to reintroduce deleted citations taken from the Stomakhin articles published on the web, since they are not contradictory and present his personal POV.
3. I would like to reintroduce in the article, deleted citations of Stomakhin taken from the official court sentence without any commentaries and explanations by Biophys.
4. I would like to reintroduce in the article deleted full citations of charges from the court official sentence of which Stomakhin was found guilty.
5. I would like to reintroduce in the article deleted citations from Stomakhin defenders Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina which prove that Stomakhin views were not dissident.
6. I would like to reintroduce in the article deleted facts about disinformation which was contained in statement of Jewish Councils about Stomakhin case.
7. I would like to reintroduce the following citations of Stomakhin taken from reliable sources:

The Stomakhin's article contained the following passages written by Stomakhin: Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sownMaxim Sokolov Trap-282 Izvestia 23 November 2006, Boris Stomakhin article Death to Russia. Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forcedBoris Stomakhin article Death to Russia.

1. I want also to restore original court sentence citations of Stomakhin without Biophys comments:

• "Bombing in Moscow subway was justified, natural and legal... The Chechens have full moral right to blow up anything they want in Russia after all that Russia and Russians did to them, none objections on humanism and philanthropy could be accepted."^[1]
• "We, 'Revolutionary Contact Association' and 'Radical Politics' are united with the Committee and are ready to cooperate with it. It is understood that we are lot more radical than it. We are for not waiting until 2008 and we shouldn't bother ourselves particularly with Constitution, but we are for calling people to overthrow and liquidate Putin's regime as soon as possible. And we at all do not see possibility of preserving of present Russian Federation as a single state. But we are for common front with all our allies, even more moderate".^[1]
• "Let tens of new Chechen snipers take their positions in the mountain ridges and the city ruins and let hundreds, thousands of aggressors fall under righteous bullets! No mercy! Death to the Russian occupiers!"^[1]
• "After all, with the same Budanov's - maniacs, blood lusting sadists, murderers and degenerates with epaulets - all Chechnya is currently filled up. And it is Russian occupation army consists of these same Budanov's".^[1]
• "In Chechnya Russian army ceased to exist as a military structure of a state, finally turned into devilish gang of marauders and killers, intoxicated with narcotics gang".^[1]

1. I would like to restore opinions of journalists from respectable newspapers:

Some journalists like M. Smolin from Komsomolskaya Pravda described his views as extremely russophobic, and suggested that Stomakhin is mentally ill. ^[2]. Prominent Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov, described Stomakhin political views as worse than those published in Mein Kampf.^[3] Orthodox religion, according to Stomakhin opinion, should be liquidated and he called not to recognize such religion. ^[4]

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

By any way possible to you in Wikipedia. My talk page and so on.

Response by another side. My arguments about violation of LP policy by Vlad Fedorov can be found here Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. So, I reported this to LP noticeboard and tried to enforce LP policy. The history of our negotiations after Stomakhin article was blocked: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Setting_the_rulesSee also Vlad's accusations here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Boris_Stomakhin_article_and_inciting_of_ethinic_hatred. Main problem at the moment is that Vlad fedorov stalks and attacks me personally: he reverts all my recent edits in articles on political topics. See Izvestia, David Satter, Yulia Latynina, Mitrokhin Archive and Anatoliy Golitsyn. Boris Stomakhin article (that I have created) was only first of this kind. Vlad was blocked for 24 hours but evaded this block. Biophys 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Now he also attacked my old edits in articles Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation and Active measures. Biophys 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC) So, instead of resolving this issue with Boris Stomakhin article, he began reverting war with me with regard to several other articles. Of course, I am not going to participate in RR wars. But he effectively blocks my ability to work in Wikipedia on Russian topics. Biophys 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) There is a couple of misunderstandings here. First, I have created an article "La Russophobe" (about web blog), which has been deleted later. This deleted article has no relationship to Boris Stomakhin article. Second, I have never called anyone "KGB agent", as can see from the text of discussion page. Biophys 20:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I also expect mediators to rule on reliability of these sources and about to rule whether they are consistent with BLP policy.Vlad fedorov 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

As for the dispute concerning the attacks thrown at each other, I think that this is a different dispute concerning civility, in which case I feel that you are both in violation of WP:CIVIL. I do disagree with the admin block (for LP violations),however, I would agree with an admin block for both of you for violations of WP:3RR, but there is really nothing anyone can do right now about that. I think that the article should have been fully protected much sooner than it actually was, and finally, the both of you should have stayed civil about this. It sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Diez2 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

As I am reading the 2 diffs between both of your versions, I am noticing a few things. First, Biophys, you use a lot of the same sources that Vlad fedorov is using. You have introduced several other sources, but I do not notice a whole lot of change in the source department. However, Vlad fedorov , he has a point. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to display him as this all-evil person who is out to destroy the world. However, Biophys went a little too far in proclaiming Stomakhin as the victim. If, and only if, there are credible sources (not editorials or other opinionated works), then the parts of Biophys that are sourced should be kept. I do not recommend the deletion of the already sourced content. I recommend that the article be reverted back to Vlad fedorov's version, and then the sourced parts of Biophys's version should be re-added. I am only 1 person, though, and I would wait for other people to respond before unprotecting the article. Diez2 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I think this debate about Boris Stomakhin is a part of a bigger problem that must be understood to make this negotiation a success. It is my personal opinion that Vlad fedorov repeatedly violates WP:BLP policy to defame people he personally dislikes, including Anna Politkovskaya, Yevgenia Albats and Boris Stomakhin (and he also does wikistalking of other users and me). Please see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yevgenia_Albats, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. Not everything there is relevant, but this information will help the negotiators to evaluate the situation. Biophys 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Diez2,

I also have the following questions to you.

1.Could you please explain what is the reason for your suggestion to revert this article to version by Vlad Fedorov? I believe his version is in violation of BLP policy, as explained here Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. You agree that there are WP:NPOV problems in Vlad's version. But according to WP:BLP rules, the biography must be NPOV. So, it is not a good idea to restore version that violates WP:BLP.

I'm suggesting that you revert to Vlad's version simply because it would be easier to fix the article according to the compromise, not because Vlad's is necessarily right. The unsourced statements must be removed, but, if the statement(s) have a credible source(s) behind them, then they should stay. Also, I agree that if the article is to follow WP:BLP, then there must be no POV in it. Diez2 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you think that current version violates WP:BLP? I understood from your comment that is not. Therefore, it can stay as a basis for further modifications.

As I said above, in order to follow WP:BLP, the article must have no POV in it. I guess I didn't make it clear enough that your version is just as POV as Vlad's was. Proclaiming Stomakhin as a victim and disregarding his alleged crimes is completely POV. Diez2 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

3. If you think that anything is poorly sourced in the present version, please tell exactly what is it. I am ready to negotiate or provide alternative references (there are plenty of them!). If you think something is poorly sourced and should be deleted or modified, let's delete it or modify.

4. If you think Vlad's version is better, let's discuss what exactly is better and include some of his portions piece by piece. Biophys 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions 3-4 will take some time, and I rarely edit on weekends. I'll be back on Monday. Diez2 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against 3rd suggestion of Biophys. Because all sources I have introduced are from the reliable sources, and Biophys violated Wikipedia policies by deleting them and creating his totaly one-sided version. Current version by Biophys violates WP:NPOV because the article contains for sources defending Stomakhin, although majority in Russia thinks negatively about Stomakhin which is evident from the blogs and fourms we couldn't cite. However from them we could conclude that people think Stomakhin is definetly not a dissident and was sentenced fairly and rightly. I also do not want to negotiate anything with Biophys because it means on practice that this biased individual would set out his personal rules. I would like a third person like Alex Bakharev and Mikkalai to reintroduce my sources or me personally, but not Biophys, Colchicum or Ilgiz.Vlad fedorov 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the compromise, Biophys did go too far in proclaming Stomakhin as a victim. (and did you mean "four" sources?) However, majority should never be used as a basis for a position simply because the majority can be wrong and has been wrong before. Finally, if you did not want to negotiate with Biophys, then why did you bring the argument here? After all, my job is to offer you a compromise between you and Biophys and try to get both of you to agree with it. Right now, not negotiating with Biophys would be like the U.S. not negotiating with North Korea about its nuclear program. It's just stupid. Diez2 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get the point. I was negotiating with Biophys on the protectd article. But Biophys stalls negotiations. He refuses to negotiate. He just demands. I just don't want see Biophys stalling again. That's why I ask not to take Biophys version as a starting point. becuase he would stall all negotiations. Moreover, I am pretty much agree with you suggestion that no POV should be cited. Just court sentence and citations of Stomakhin taken from his publications. Vlad fedorov 06:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can we move forward

Diez2, I think you should learn a little about the subject of the article and take a look yourself at the sources to conduct these negotiations. You might first take a look at references 1,13,14 and 15 in the article (the only English-language sources), and then try to translate some Russian articles of interest if you want. I guess you do not know Russian?. Then, I suggest the following. You tell me what is the problem in your opinion in the present version and how to fix it (but please be specific), and I will probably agree with you, unless this is a clear violation of BLP policy (you will see!). Please note that I have negotiated with many people and never had any trouble with anyone but Vlad. But I strongly disgree with reverting article to Vlad's version. We can do it only piece by piece, after discussing each fragment to make sure that each piece does not not contradict WP:BLP, for example by citing unreliable defamatory sources (this is my only concern). If you find any unreliable and defamatory sources in the present version (I believe there is one such piece) - I will agree to remove them immediately. Biophys 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) P.S.One, possibly most important English-language source is missing. Please take a look: [1]]Biophys 03:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The last link you provided must either be a broken link, or the server must be down, because I can't load the page. Diez2 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It worked for me. See: http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/112006PR.shtml

This source {statement} contained false information that Stomakhin was pushed from the window. So, this is unreliable, biased secondary source. It doesn't describe facts, it just states allegations. It is POV. So, if we are to create a version without POV's, then this source should be left from the article.Vlad fedorov 05:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One way to move forward is to decide first which sources are reliable and appropriate (satisfy WP:BLP). We can make a list. As soon as this is decided, everything else can go smoothly. For example, we can simply delete pieces of text not supported by appropriate sources in any version of the article. Then just for starters, I believe that any reliable source must be signed and dated, so we know who is its author and when it has been produced. Diez2, do you agree? Biophys 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All unsourced content should be deleted per Wikipedia policy anyway. Diez2 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, Biophys, that you have got proper answer on reliable sources talk page, for your personal interpretation that sources without date are unreliable. Please, Diez, note that Biophys stresses in his last message, that sources without signature and date, are according to him all - all unreliable. He now would be talking that you have decided that RKO website is unreliable source. I categorically disagree with such statements as well as users here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#Minimal_requirements_for_reliable_sources. I agree that, as a principle, unreliable sources should be excluded, but automatic rendering of sources unreliable due to the fact that they bear no date - violates Wikipedia policies and presents personal unauthorized interpretation of Wikipedia rules.Vlad fedorov 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-page created

Just so both of you know, I created a sub-page to Boris Stomakhin that can be found here. This is so I can better compare the 2 versions. Please do not edit it. Diez2 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Diez2, now I understand your approach. Fine, you can start editing Vlad's version on the separate sub-page to make it consistent with WP:BLP. Do you want me to tell what should be changed in Vlad's version? Then, my first concern is citation of RKO site in his version. I just had a conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#Minimal_requirements_for_reliable_sources and looked again at WP:BLP. First, this is clearly a "questionable source". It has "no editorial oversight or fact-checking process...Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." WP:BLP say that questionable source "can be used in articles about those sources as long as it is not contentious; it does not involve claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." Obviously, this text is extremely contentious, it involves unfair and unsubstantiated claims about other people, and there are even doubt as to who wrote it (author was initially indicted based on false claims that he wrote something and posted on a web site which he actually did not write). Clearly, this is not an appropriate source. Biophys 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I categorically disagree with the position of Biophys, that RKO website is unreliable source. This websites contains drafts of the incorporation documents of the organization (Revolutionary Contact Association) which is headed by Stomakhin. It contains programms of RKO, publications in press about RKO, contains a full archive of Radikalnaya Politika newpaper by RKO, contains full archieve of all articles written by Boris Stomakhin, photographs, it contains news subscription, and contains the e-mail address of Stomakhin. Considering that nothing in this website contradicts to reliable sources (Biophys failed to show contradictions), considering that Wikipedia allows to publish even information taken from blog if it is written by the subject of the article, I think we could cite and publish citations from Boris Stomakhin articles. If he was a journalist - we should have the possibility to publish his articles. How that could be - we can't cite any of the writing of a man who is named as a journalist? Otherwise, article about Boris Stomakhin would be disinformational, incomplete and bizzare. Moreover this website is run by Ludmila Efstifeeva, a memeber of RKO and at the same time employee at Novaya Gazeta Russian newspaper where Anna Politkovskaya had been working for years. Therefore, this site is run by professionals. Other argument is that citations of Stomakhin match those cited by respectable Izvestia newspaper journalist Maksim Sokolov and this fact strengthens the reliability of this source. Vlad fedorov 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, just as a side comment, I'm really starting to agree with Alex Bakharev's and Xyzzy's outside opinions on the matter featured in the requests for comment page on Vlad (link is above). Both of you are fond of edit warring, both each label each other's edits as vandalism, both of you obviously have polarized when it comes to Russian politics, and most of all, both of you do nothing to curb your own bias. I have looked over the article, and only a few minor areas are left unsourced in each version (maybe a couple of sentences or more). I'll try to fix the sub-page to a reasonable compromise, and it will include both Vlad's and Biophys's versions. This will take some time though (and I might need help with the Russian sources), and I must ask both of you to please hang on and stay calm. Diez2 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know. I am going to a trip and can resume negotiations only in the end of next week.Biophys 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sent to Mediation committee

Because you refuse to debate here, and because this debate has been going on for more than 3 months, I am now removing myself from all other arguments here and sending this debate up to the Mediation committee. This case is now closed. Thank you. Diez2 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)