This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Russia: Politics and law / Mass media C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

You may be technically right. This is probably non-profit organization. Biophys 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have removed the clause that all financing comes from abroad as it contradicts the stated source [1]: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) I would say "USA government (through NED)" rather than "foreign governments (embassies)". Biophys 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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) 

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[2] and respective diffs [3], []:

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.

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) 

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 [4], 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 would like to discuss here just the typical case. In the article dedicated to Russian security agency GRU[5], 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 [6], [7] and [8]. 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 [9]. 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.

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 [10]. 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 [11]. He called me a troll on my talk page[12] and therefore personaly attacked me too.

Even now 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.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]