Talk:Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties

Security provision to Russian Government websites

This report from March 2022 https://cybernews.com/security/kaspersky-neutral-stance-in-doubt-as-it-shields-kremlin/ with a quote from Kaspersky, confrims that they provide DDoS Protection for mil.ru website. While not confirmation of data sharing or spying, this seems to me to be the only solid confirmation of ties to russian government. Is that something noteable to be included in the article? 51.148.190.133 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolve claim of malicious changes/vandalism

@Byte-ul, rather than continuing to go back and forth with reverts, please explain why you consider my referenced contribution to be 'malicious' and 'vandalism'.

Also, that last revert from your public IP address (seemingly an attempt to get around the 3RR) wasn't exactly subtle.

---

@Ilike2burnthing Whether or not the European Commission has proof is not directly relevant to this discussion. The key point is that the motion in question was voted on by the European Parliament, not the Commission. Additionally, the sources you provided do not seem applicable in this context. Citing five separate articles that discuss the same topic comes across as strange. Furthermore, by doxing my user information from other boards, you are behaving dishonestly. I'm feeling increasingly harassed by your unwanted attention and intrusive behavior.

---

@Byte-ul, the European Parliament voted based on the findings and recommendations of the European Commission[1], so yes them admitting they had no evidence is relevant to the issue.

I suggest actually reading the cited sources, as they are not '5 articles discussing the same topic'. The first is the original question to the Commission, the next 3 are the separate previous German, French, and Belgian findings on the issue, and only the last one is an article (from ZDNET) discussing the issue in a wider context.

Neither of those reasons though, even if true, would constitute a reason to revert in full and label the contribution as 'malicious' and 'vandalism'.

I have zero idea what you're talking about when you say you're, "[...] feeling increasingly harassed by [my] unwanted attention and intrusive behavior." I civilly replied once to a single comment on Reddit (which you've been spamming to harass other members), you then responded and immediately blocked me, created this Wikipedia account, and reverted my contribution. I mentioned your Reddit username to confirm this was a continuation of that brief interaction. You weren't doxed. You using your own IP address to make a fourth revert might be the closest thing to doxing here.

EDIT: I have just noticed you're now spamming a new comment on Reddit with my username included, and specifically linking to the Wikipedia page with mention of my edit, so you clearly have no concern for privacy or anonymity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilike2burnthing (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

-----

Now with the relevancy clarified, and having explained the differences between the sources, do you agree to leave my contribution alone? Ilike2burnthing (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

---

@Ilike2burnthing I do not agree with this contribution and I think it's best to keep it removed.

It would be inappropriate to edit a Wikipedia article solely to try to prove a point from an argument you had elsewhere. Wikipedia articles should be edited to improve the encyclopedia, not to settle personal disputes.

I would prefer if we could discuss the issues at hand without bringing up unrelated topics or activities, but since your contribution is a result of a dispute you had outside of Wikipedia and you keep making personal attacks, my decision stands.

Also, please learn the differences between the European Parliament and the European Commission and how these institutions interact with each other before trying to make a point. Byte-ul (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Byte-ul can you explain why you disagree? I've responded to the two points you made, and you've just dismissed them out of hand.

I suggest you check the date of my contribution (Jan 7th) and the date of my only comment to you on Reddit (Jan 11th). The contribution was not made to 'settle a personal dispute'. That aside, as it's all referenced and relevant, it really wouldn't matter anyway.

I haven't made any personal attacks. Rather hypocritically though, on Reddit you've taken to referring to me and two others as 'Kaspersky hired trolls' in your new wave of spammed harassment, even using a second account now.

I'm aware of the difference between the European Parliament and the European Commission, I never equated them, rather said that the former made their decision based of the findings and recommendations of the latter, which is true and even referenced for your convenience. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of the third opinion, link to the attempted dispute resolution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties Ilike2burnthing (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

To respond to the points made there:

- The resolution in question starts, "The European Parliament," followed by a couple dozen lines that continue, "having regard to," of which about half then reference the Commission's various communications. Obviously the opinion of the Commission was of significant importance to this resolution, so if they don't have any evidence to support an action within it, that would be relevant.

- In my contribution I wrote that Gerolf Annemans cited reports from Germany, France, and Belgium, so I included his citations. They were not evidence for or against anything, just the URLs as provided by him in his letter to the Commission.

- To reply to the rest would just be repeating myself, as it's the same hypocritical falsehoods as before.

Suggested resolution:

- Restore my contribution.

- Edit the text "question for written answer to the Commission" to "question for written answer to the European Commission", as this is the first mention of the Commission.

- Edit the text "justifying their labelling" to "justifying the Parliament's labelling". That was the original intent as the Parliament had been previously mentioned, but so was the Commission, so I could see that being confusing.

If there are any further suggestions, please let me know. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am closing the Third Opinion request, because it appears to be asking for opinions about both editor conduct and article content. Third Opinion does not address conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

Following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#User:Byte-ul, from which Byte-ul received a warning for their reverts of my contribution, I ask that my contribution be restored in full, with the following minor edits:

- Edit the text "question for written answer to the Commission" to "question for written answer to the European Commission", as this is the first mention of the Commission.

- Edit the text "justifying their labelling" to "justifying the Parliament's labelling". That was the original intent as the Parliament had been previously mentioned, but so was the Commission, so I could see that being confusing. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case could you make these changes? Thanks. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ilike2burnthing (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case may I know why these changes were accepted in the current form? I clearly explained throughout my posts that the entire edit is disingenuous, the editor is not understanding the differences between European institutions and the used sources are outdated. Even the next paragraph in the article is contradicting the "Germany ... found no evidence of this" statement. BIS is clearly advising against using Kaspersky.

1. The german BSI is actually warning against the usage of Kaspersky software .
2. There is no discussion in the senat.fr article about having evidence against Kaspersky or not. Kaspersky is only described as intrusive
3. There is no source for the belgian Cybersecurity Center claims, nor any link pointing to the institution's analysis.

Kaspersky was labeled as a malicious by the European Parliament as an amendment added by Anna Elżbieta Fotyga. The European Commission had nothing to do with it and it is irrelevant whether the European Commission is in possession of any evidence.

I request this article to be reverted to the stable version on 30 December 2023‎. Byte-ul (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

All of this has already been responded to in the section above. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

no, it was not. Byte-ul (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was:

"the entire edit is disingenuous"

> I suggest you check the date of my contribution (Jan 7th) and the date of my only comment to you on Reddit (Jan 11th). The contribution was not made to 'settle a personal dispute'. That aside, as it's all referenced and relevant, it really wouldn't matter anyway.

> you then responded and immediately blocked me, created this Wikipedia account, and reverted my contribution

"the editor is not understanding the differences between European institutions"

> I'm aware of the difference between the European Parliament and the European Commission, I never equated them, rather said that the former made their decision based of the findings and recommendations of the latter, which is true and even referenced for your convenience.

"The European Commission had nothing to do with it and it is irrelevant whether the European Commission is in possession of any evidence."

> The resolution in question starts, "The European Parliament," followed by a couple dozen lines that continue, "having regard to," of which about half then reference the Commission's various communications. Obviously the opinion of the Commission was of significant importance to this resolution, so if they don't have any evidence to support an action within it, that would be relevant.

"the used sources are outdated" [and basically everything after that]

> In my contribution I wrote that Gerolf Annemans cited reports from Germany, France, and Belgium, so I included his citations. They were not evidence for or against anything, just the URLs as provided by him in his letter to the Commission. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

1. this has nothing to do with reddit, you need to stop mentioning reddit every reply while disingenuously evading the main point of this discussion.

2. The Commission had zero involvement in the decision, I don't understand why you believe otherwise. I already explained the decision was based on an amendment. Your misunderstanding of European institutions role in this decision and in general is again obvious.

3. It doesn't matter what reports were cited by Annemans, you don't have to cite them as well if they are outdated and irrelevant.

4. So, as I said, the European Commission had nothing to do with it and it is irrelevant whether the European Commission is in possession of any evidence. Byte-ul (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case therefore, I request again for this article to be reverted to the stable version on 30 December 2023‎. Byte-ul (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's pointless talking in circles with you. I've already replied to all this and you're refusing to listen. The change has been made, with Daniel having seen the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion, your official warning, the DRN and 3O requests.

Daniel, if you want to discuss this any further, by all means, but otherwise I consider this issue resolved a month ago. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

References