Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin

Initial details

 * Taken from Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin, with modifications.

Involved parties

 * Also known as simply "parties" from now on.



Articles involved
Many others

Issues

 * Application of Biographies of living persons
 * Application of Neutral point of view
 * Application of WP:UNDUE
 * Application of WP:FRINGE
 * Application of WP:RS
 * Application of WP:POINT

Initial Statements
I would like to hear both parties' views without complicated discussion in the first instance. To that end, I'd like you both to put a statement below, under your named section. Please don't engage in a detailed rebuttal of the other editor's points for now. I want to get an overview of the situation first.

When we have got to this place, we can then decide exactly what issues are under contest. From there we will hopefully be able to find a solution you can all be happy with.

Basically, a short (couple of paragraphs, maximum) summary of whether you believe the content in question is POV/not POV, a violation of BLP/not a violation, and why. Once this is established, then we can start to work on a comprimise version.

I'm sorry that this may seem complex and drawn-out, but the first 3-4 days are always the worst, because I need to establish a starting point before I can mediate effectively.

Cheers,  Daniel  05:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov
Biophys has made a sterile article using only pro-Stomakhin sources. Everything about Stomakhin is written by the hands of his supporters in the current version. Biophys has elaborated definition of Stomakhin acitivities given by his supporters. As a result, criminal Boris Stomakhin who called to exterminate Russians as a nation is portrayed as innocent victim of bloody Putin regime.

For example, in the opening paragraph, Biophys states that Stomakhin "openly challenged Putin policy in Chechnya". However, a lot of other people make it every day in Russia and me too.

Biophys has described Stomakhin crime as a "hate speech", but according to the court sentence it is "calls to overthrow violantly government and constitutional regime", "extremist activities" (calls to exterminate Russians and calls to commit terorit attacks. By using this overgeneralization, Biophys creates an impression that Stomakhin is really nice guy, while in the reality Stomakhin said that all Russians should be killed.

Another thing, is that Biophys sterilizes the article by deleting all the statements of Stomakhin which compromise him. Stomakhin was publishing his articles on his organization website - http://rko.marsho.net - where all of his articles are stored. These articles contain all his calls to exterminate Russians, to overthrow constitutional regime and calls to commit terrorist attacks. Biophys deletes every citation from his website. Why we couldn't publish the works of that "journalist" if he is called journalist? Moreover some excerpts from his articles are published by journalists - however Biophys deletes even them.

Biophys has gone so far, that he deletes information that supporter of Stomakhin - Gannushkina denounced writings of Stomakhin as "outrageous", that supporter of Stomakhin - Novodvorskaya - said that Stomakhin "compromised the opposition movement", that Novodvorskaya party refused to defend her former memeber - Stomakhin.

Biophys deletes criticism of Stomakhin by non-supporters - journalists of respectable newspapers.

Biophys also deletes the information about Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, which have made false statemements that Stomakhin was pushed from window, while in the reality Stomakhin attempted to escape from police again.

I want to reinsert such sources as court statement, Stomakhin articles, journalists criticism of Stomakhin, and information about Stomakhin from Gannushkina and Novodvorskaya.

The same is the case in Yevgenia Albats article. I have described well know event, when Albats publicly attacked another journalist, because she dared to criticize Anna Politkovskaya. There was even camapaign in Russian internet with slogan: "Alabts - get out of air". Vlad fedorov 05:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Vlad fedorov 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys
I think that our editorial conflict is not about Boris Stomakhin. It is about Russian secret services, KGB (currently named FSB) and affiliated organization GRU. All these nineteen articles, which became a subject of RR warring, are created or significantly extended by me AND they (a) describe KGB operations (like Internet brigades which caused most of the emotions), or (b) describe people allegedly prosecuted by KGB; or (c) describe people who did research on KGB subjects.

I have created and edited numerous articles on these subjects in complete agreement with WP policies, namely WP:SOURCE and especially WP:BLP. Everything I did was supported by multiple reliable sources. Vlad is trying to "censor" me or make these articles unreadable by all available means, including:
 * (a) marking articles for deletion (as Internet brigades),
 * (b) allegedly vandalizing the articles (I can provide a lot of examples),
 * (c) inserting irrelevant or duplicated texts from other WP articles;
 * (d) inserting defamatory poorly sourced claims about people he does not like (victims of KGB/FSB repressions - Boris Stomakhin and researchers of KGB crimes - Yevgenia Albats)
 * (e) marking articles as totally disputed without any discussion or explanations;
 * (f) simply reverting my edits,
 * (g) insulting me personally (I can provide examples);
 * (e) sending false claims about me (such as that I promote "ethnic hatred") to ANI noticebord.

Biophys 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not only my personal assessment of the situation. Please take a look at RfC Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov filed by User:Colchicum and supported by me, see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. As User:Colchicum said, "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 so on. Biophys 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reconfirmation
As noted on Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin, I need a reconfirmation post-block to ensure we are a) active; and b) happy to continue mediation. If you are both, please sign agree 'below'; if not, sign 'disagree'. Cheers,  Daniel  05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree.Biophys 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hereby give my consent only to mediation for the articles Boris Stomakhin, Yevgeniya Albats and Anna Politkovskaya. The rest of the issues Biophys could mediate under separate mediation process which he could file. Vlad fedorov 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Biophys, are you fine with that?  Daniel  08:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are two problems with that. First, the real issue is not Stomakhin, but alleged wikistalking of all my edits on KGB subjects by Vlad fedorov. So, yes, we could discuss Stomakhin article, but this will not solve any problems. On the other hand, if we agree for example on this:, all remaining problems can be resolved easily. Second, the disagreements with articles Yevgeniya Albats and Anna Politkovskaya involve many other users. So, whatever we decide about these specific articles, this will not resolve anything.  What we really have is a long-standing conflict of two users, which involves numerous articles; and it should be resolved as such. Anything less than that will be waste of our time.Biophys 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I believe this solution    is perfect. First, it treats Vlad and me completely equal. So, I am not asking for any personal favors. Second, it resolves all our long-standing problems forever. Third, it saves a lot of time for everyone involved. Fourth, no one gets blocked or punished.Biophys 17:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "First, the real issue is not Stomakhin, but alleged wikistalking of all my edits on KGB subjects by Vlad fedorov." The MedCom doesn't deal with user conduct disputes, only content disputes. Our sister-body, the Arbitration Committee, seeks to resolve user conduct disputes through binding remedies. This Committee seeks to resolve content disputes by comprimise and negotiation. I'm afraid that I can't see how this case can proceed.  Daniel  00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your advice? Do you think this should be directed to Arbitration Committee, or you think that I am wrong here, and this case should be handled as a content disagreement that takes place in a number of articles?Biophys 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I do not make any comment on the conduct of you two individually or as a pair, from the discussion I saw on ANI, I would say that the Arbitration Committee is the best option to sort out this dispute. I doubt RfC would be effective, as this isn't a one-user problem. Mediation can't work, because the dispute is conduct-based, not content. I wouldn't continue mediation because the dispute over content is not really over content, but over conduct (ie. alleged wikistalking, etc.).  Daniel  01:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This RfM, which initially started out as a content dispute, has become a conduct dispute, with slight content undertones. Mediation is not effective with non-content disputes (which is why we reject policy and conduct RfM's), and I believe that mediation cannot be effective in this situation because the accusations and counter-accusations of stalking and personal attacks, as we aren't focusing on content any more but rather conduct. I have closed the RfM as failed, and ask you two take your dispute through the processes of RfC and possibly even RfAr, if you so desire to do either. I don't blame you guys for what's happened, although I hope you can understand why I've decided to do this. Cheers,  Daniel  08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your decision. Please note that RfC was tried already. But to be honest, I personally have very little desire to start an arbitration case right now. It is summer time. Vlad, can we just relax a little, and do not bother anyone with our case?Biophys 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I want to decide the matter as for the articles. So I want to continue mediation. Vlad fedorov 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)