I have never commented on the issue and I have not followed the Biophys-Fedorov debacle, but I would like to point out what a controversial person Boris Stomakhin is. Several quotes from his proclamations:

The Russians should be killed, and only killed - among them you won't find a normal, clever, intelligent person with whom you could talk and on whose understanding you could rely on... Henceforward, we should make no division between the militants and civilians. [1]

Kill, kill, kill! Drown all Russia in blood, show no mercy to anyone, at least one nuclear explosion on the territory of the Russian Federation is mandatory... Let the Russians reap what they sow! [2]

Death to the Russian invaders! Death to the bloody empire of fanatics! Freedom to the enslaved nations! [3]

Those who don't see incitement to ethnic or racial hatred or sedition in these lines, attempting to cast Stomakhin as a "freedom fighter" or an innocent "victim of anti-Semitism", should be held responsible for using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

It needs to be demonstrated that the dispute is ongoing. There have been no Vlad's comments on the issue since June and the article has not been edited since May. I believe the arbitrators have more urgent cases to examine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After I noted that the article had not been edited since May, a supposedly non-involved sysop found it prudent to "defuse" the situation by this edit, effectively opening the can of worms again, while Biophys hastily added as an evidence of "other steps in dispute resolution" the links to fifteen WP:ANI threads, which normally have nothing to do with Stomakhin. Since when WP:ANI is regarded as part of the dispute resolution procedure? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: just renamed from User:Pan_Gerwazy, still using old signature in transition)

I do not want to comment on content, but I want to react to the claim by User:Biophys that the blog in question should not be used because it is an unreliable source. First, this was also a monthly publication printed on about 30 copies and often got quoted by Kavkaz Center ([4]), proving that the article is not something virtual that was just "found on his computer's hard disk". Second, if there is POV on that website, it is obviously pro-Stomakhin and anti-Putin. Corroboration is of course to be found in the sites that quote that address. Interestingly, googling "Kill!"+Boris Stomakhin will even net you "la Russophobe' (again, probably an unreliable source, but anti-Putin) Claiming Wikipedia cannot quote this, because its POV makes it unreliable, is like putting the cart before the horse. The relevancy is that a number of people supporting Stomakhin have actually claimed that he never wrote this.

It is not the only time that Biophys has tried to kill all discussion by claiming information should not be added simply because it is from a dubious source, even though the POV could not possibly be against his viewpoint: here he said that information saying that a particular organization no longer exists should not be added because it was from an unverifiable source, while it was the blog from that organization, the address I quoted could be reached from the link he put in the article, and the organization was never more than a blog in the first place. --Pan Gerwazy 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment the core issue, just note User's Biophys mentioning of me. I already had to provide explanations for my words. I don't quite comprehend Biophys's reaction. The explanation I can see is that subconsciously he searches to become a victim of the murderous KGB regime in Russia. Classical dissidents complex, rooting in martyrdom of early Christianity. But he can't get there's no KGB and no murderous regime. Unable to meet his subconscious beliefs, he surrounds himself with imaginary threats. It's not a secret, he suspected me of being a KGB agent, whatever ridicilous that sounds. Heya, Biophys. As Alex to Yustas, I can say that your job is highly appreciated in a local KGB department, check your account in the end of the month.

From my side, I don't agree with worldview of this user, but don't feed negative feelings towards him. ellol 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the mediator in the RfM, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. I closed it because mediation is about content, not conduct, and we weren't going anywhere with the RfM due to the near-entire part that "accusations and counter-accusations of stalking and personal attacks" were unfortunately playing in the RfM, and despite some efforts by me to steer it back on track, I had no success in doing so. I have deleted the histories and blanked the pages, as I believe that all parties tried in good faith to solve this problem through mediation. Hence, under Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation, I am obliged to protect the privileged nature of mediation by the Mediation Committee.

I again express my best wishes to the parties that they can have their issues resolved by the Arbitration Committee, and express my apologies that mediation could not continue. However, as I noted on the now-deleted RfM talk page after I closed the RfM, I believe that RfAr may have a better chance of resolving this particular dispute (Essjay wrote a now-deleted essay on the topic, which can be read here). Cheers, Daniel 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]