Talk:Web brigades/Archive 1

This is a very biased article so it should be deleted!

It should be deleted because of very strong anti-and anti-Russian bias. For example: there is virtually nothing here about US-made manipulation of the infosphere. So either completly re-write it, or DELETE it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.147.81 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Won't the article be an interesting test? The resolve of the Wikimedia Foundation and their international supporters as opposed to those who are not concerned with honesty and who do not agree with free speech. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A Red Flag on Internet Information Manipulation

This article is very important as it highlights the approach of corporations and government active manipulation of the infosphere. Please review information from the BBC on the Pentagon's effort called to wage information warfare on the internet, Scroll down for the policy recommendation on page 49 (pdf version) of "Information Operations Roadmap" report which is available at the News BBC site news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm The official Pentagon Report from the site. news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf Recommend relevance level please. --220.239.179.128 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation to previous article

I do not recall exactly the previous article on this general subject; I assume that this one has been revised from the article discussed at Deletion review [1] which in turn links to the AfD at [2]

I see that there are only Russian sources for the earlier part of the article; there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, and some are translated. But because of the nature of the subject, I think it extremely important to find sources published by journalists from elsewhere, not directly involved in the controversy. DGG 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I belive it is now a significantly different article, although some segments of text indeed concide. The title and content are very different, this article is much bigger and includes 14 references (the initial version of the article previously marked for deletion included only one reference, although I increased the number of references during deletion discussion). O'K, let' take a look at the references:

1. ^ a b c China's secret internet police target critics with web of propaganda, by Jonathan Watts in Beijing, June 14, 2005, Guardian Unlimited
2. ^ a b c d e f g Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer. by Anna Polyanskaya, Andrei Krivov, and Ivan Lomko, Vestnik online, April 30, 2003 (English translation)
3. ^ a b c d e Eye for an eye (Russian) by Grigory Svirsky and Vladimur Bagryansky, publication of Russian Center for Extreme Journalism [1]
4. ^ Articles by Anna Polyanskaya, MAOF publishing group 5. ^ They are killing Galina Starovoitova for the second time (Russian) by Anna Polyanskaya
6. ^ Conspiracy theory by Alexander Usupovsky, Russian Journal, 25 April, 2003
7. ^ Operation "Disinformation" - The Russian Foreign Office vs "Tygodnik Powszechny", Tygodnik Powszechny, 13/2005
8. ^ Interview of Roman Sadykhov (Russian), grani.ru, 3 April, 2007.
9. ^ Military wing of Kremlin (Russian), The New Times, 19 March, 2007 10. ^ " Grigory Svirsky Anastasya. A story on-line (Full text in Russian) 11. ^ China's Hu vows to "purify" Internet, Reuters, Jan 24, 2007 12. ^ War of the words by Guardian Unlimited, February 20, 2006
13. ^ Ｗho are China's Top Internet Cops? China Digital Times
14. ^ Internet as a field of information war against Armenia, by Samvel Martirosyan, 18 October, 2006,

References 1 and 7 are not written by Russian journalists, althouth they claim directly about the existence of this phenomenon. What do you mean: "involvement in controversy"? Do you mean that Ivan Lomko is "involved" because he discussed this matter in blogs after publication of his article? That sounds strange to me. But all other Russian authors are certainly not "involved" this way (Polyanskaya and references 3 (Grigory Svirsky), 8 and 9; others are not "Russian"). Biophys 06:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What exacly is different for example?
1. Definition of the phenomenon was changed (so, we are talking about a different thing).
2. This is described as an international (not solely Russian) phenomenon.
3. More references was added and POV significantly reduced. Biophys 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this article does not qualify for speedy deletion

The rule says: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."

First, this article is not "substantially identical to the deleted version" (see below: it is sever times bigger and even its subject is significantly different). Second, even if to consider this as a recreation of an old article, the reasons for deletion were clearly addressed. The following critique has been provided during the deletion discussion: (a) wrong title; (b) WP:OR; (c) this is not a solely Russian phenomenon. All of that clearly can not be said about Internet brigades article. (a) The title is different. (b) This is not OR; 16 references to reliable sources provided. (c) This is not a solely Russian phenomenon, as clear from the text.

Now more detail:Biophys 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I think this is new article. Yes, I have created previously the following article (this is the text exactly as it was when it was marked for deletion and the voting began - see[3]):

Internet troll squads are teams of people from state security organizations who work in the Internet to harass and intimidate political bloggers, prevent free discussion of undesirable subjects, and to create the public opinion desired by the authorities.

This phenomenon has been discovered in RuNet by a group of investigative journalists led of Anna Polyanskaya, a former assistant to the Russian politician Galina Starovoitova

They found the appearance of organized and fairly professional “Squads”, composed of ideologically and methodologically identical personalities, who work in practically every popular liberal and pro-democracy blogs and internet newspapers of RuNet in Russian blogosphere. Troll squads appeared suddenly on Russian-language forums only in 1999 and they have been presumably organized by FSB, according to Polyanskaya and her collegaues.

These Internet “Squads” have a number of distinct features some of which are the folowing:

• Boundless loyalty to Vladimir Putin and his circle
• Respect and admiration for the KGB and FSB
• Hatred of dissidents and human rights organizations and activists, political prisoners and journalists, especially Anna Politkovskaya and Sergei Kovalev.
• Anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism.
• Accusation of Russophobia against everyone who disagrees with them.
• A favorite method of the Squad is to accuse their opponents of being insane.
• Low cultural level
• Round-the-clock presence on forums. At least one of the uniform members of the brigade can be found online at all times, always ready to repulse any “attack” by a liberal.

Sources

• FSB brigades in the Internet (Russian) and English translation by La Russophobe

References

Now please take a look at the present text of Internet brigades. The definition of the phenomenon is different. So, we are talking about a different thing. This is now an international (not solely Russian) phenomenon. There are 16 references insted of 2, and so on. Even if one consider this a partial recreation of an old article, it is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policies to recreate an article if its initial verstion (stub!) has been deleted. Biophys 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not deleting this article at this time, and I have removed the speedy tags. Kafziel ^Talk 17:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for speedy deletion

• First of all, nothing has changed really in the article. The only thing that changed is defenition. And again it is original research. Where and who named those hoax russian teams "internet brigades"? Biophys linked originally to the Guradian article about China, but there is no any labelling of that thing in China. Guradian uses the term "army of secret comentators". Later after the article was nominated for deletion, Biophys has added a link to Polyanskaya article "Commissars of the internet". And again we see that throughout the whole text a term "brigade" is used meaning "team". Only once the term "web-brigade" is used. Looking onto other sources - we see that there is no such term which was used by Biophys. Conclusion, the term and the name for the article is an original research by Biophys which is not found in its sources.
• Second, Biophys again publishes Sections "Behaviour" and "Tactics" - they haven't changed even and are ridiculously worded. According to them, every man in the internet who supports Putin - is a member of KGB "internet team". It is stupid... They abuse directly other users in Wikipedia.
• Third, the article in Russian Wikipedia directly shows in its infobox that "Internet teams" are conspiracy theory and the whole thing is based on claims of few people, namely - Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko - authors of the article "Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer". Nowhere on this article the information about conspiracy theory is indicated.
• Fourth, like the other article it is totally dedicated to Russia. Even adding some original research comparisons with China didn't help - the article is totally about Russia. For example. original research is all that Biophys published in the Section "Recent developments" nothing is said in the sources about the subject of the article - internet teams.
• Fifth, the defenition of internet teams is totally original research. Nowhere you coud find that "intenet teams" are waging state-sponcored information warfare. Indeed, the word "warfare" is totally POV, except original research. Nowhere in sources you find that this is a warfare, and is against "blogs" or "political bloggers" - I have already pointed many times that nowhere in Russian sources you could find a word "Blog".
• Sixth, false translation and original research in that "internet brigades" are working against blogs.
• Seventh, this article is a POV fork of the deleted article Internet Troll Squads which was twice deleted: AfD and deletion review. Therefore the words of Kafziel do not correspond to reality. Moreover, the forst voting at AfD was rigged by Biophys and his friends canvassing outside the Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. 1. Please try Google search "Internet brigades", and you will see a lot of hits. I even had to make a disambig page Internet brigade. "Internet brigades" is simply translation from Russian. 2 No original research here. Everything is taken from sources. I personally do not claim anything at all. 3 Definition of the "Internet brigades" is taken from the sources. I only try to formulate this in encyclopedic style. If someone can formulate this better - you are welcome to do it. Let's discuss it here. 4 There is no much difference between "blogs" and "internet forums". If you think there is, we can write everywhere "forum" instead of "blog". 5 I wrote that Ysopovsky claimed this to be a conspiracy theory. This is something not obvious and debatable ("pro" and "contras" can be included in the article).Biophys 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1. And what? What reliable references out of these you have published? Do they refer to Russia or China?.
• 2. Hahaha... Nothing is found in sources about state-sponcored information warfare. Give us the references and sources. You haven't done it.
• 3. It is absoultely unencyclopedic in that you haven't given any reliable references.
• 4. There is a big difference between "forum" and "blog". But let your ignorance speak for itself.
• 5. It is so obvious, that even in Russian wikipedia people inserted warning infobox. So it's important enough.Vlad fedorov 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of text supported by references

The text deleted by Vlad was supported by the following references:

(1) Article by Usupovsky. He said in the end: "Огульное охаивание и нарочитая дискредитация с помощью "аргументов", сквозь которые просвечивают белые нитки, лишь способствует выталкиванию спецслужб во внеправовое пространство и толкает их к беспределу." That is exactly what I wrote in the article.

(2) Article by Svirsky. It claims a lot of things including the following: "Для нас несомненно, что в лице интернетной агитбригады Александра Юсуповского мы имеем наиболее косную и профнепригодную группу идеологической работы российской госбезопасности в Рунете. Эти агитаторы ФСБ были неспособны на серьёзные интеллектуальные дискуссии и до публикации аналитической работы "Виртуальное око старшего брата". На появление статьи интернет-Лубянка ответила её авторам и своим оппонетам на форумах Рунета тоже по-сталински: не серьёзным спором с фактами и аргументами в этой умной, богатой наблюдениями статье, а – выстрелом грязной шрапнелью. И прямыми угрозами убийства – пока лишь виртуальными... ". By the way, it uses expression: "интернетной агитбригады". Direct translation: "Internet agitation brigade".Biophys 16:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Improper title

On top of all of the above, the article's title is unjustified. The term "Internet brigades" has no established English usage in this context and as per this a neutrally phrased descriptive title is needed. I can't be sure which one since it is not clear to me what the scope of this article is supposed to be and whether it is the author intention to present this as a conspiracy theory or a real phenomenon. In any case, the current title is unacceptable. --Irpen 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet brigades and Wikipedia

Is anything known of those guys trying to push their propaganda through in Wikipedia? This project would be - intrinsically - a good means for these people.213.35.213.206 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They would be interested in this article and other russia related stuff.

Query the RIPE Database Search for 213.35.213.206

Switch to the RIPE TEST Database

% This is the RIPE Whois query server #1. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html % Note: This output has been filtered. % To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag. % Information related to '213.35.212.0 - 213.35.213.255' inetnum: 213.35.212.0 - 213.35.213.255 netname: EE-ESTPAK descr: ADSL PtP descr: TRT-248-177 descr: Sole 14 descr: Tallinn descr: Estonian Telephone Co/Estpak Data country: EE admin-c: ET332-RIPE tech-c: ET332-RIPE rev-srv: dns.estpak.ee rev-srv: dns2.estpak.ee status: ASSIGNED PA remarks: INFRA-AW mnt-by: ESTPAK-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered role: ESTPAK NOC address: Elion Enterprises Ltd. address: Hostmasters and NOC helpdesk address: Sole str 14, Tallinn address: Estonia fax-no: +372 639 1180 remarks: trouble: 24/7 phone +372 639 1082 remarks: trouble: abuse@estpak.ee remarks: ---------------------------------------- remarks: Abuse notifications to: abuse@estpak.ee remarks: Network problems to: noc@elion.ee remarks: Peering requests to: peering@elion.ee remarks: IPv6 peering requests to: ipv6@elion.ee remarks: ----------------------------------------

Another Estonian internet troll squad memeber is here.Vlad fedorov 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The only internet troll squads in Estonia would be those funded by the Russian FSB, as no-one else here would have the resources for such operations :)

(Incidentally, many public discussion forums indeed show clear signs of such Putinist squads in action. Rather obvious tell-tale signs caught my attention long before I read about the existence of such squads). 80.235.47.87 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, but I bet you can't tell that those "Putinists" are from FSB's supposed web squads or if they are members of some political parties or some self-appointed "providers of peoples will" who give you a chance to a wisdom of Putins greatness.

So I mean while you definetly saw some over-active /or you believe so/ Putins fans you cant normaly prove their belongings to FSB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research and falsification

Biophys inserted the following text in the article:

The teams of "Live Journal fighters" are reportedly created by "Russia the young" organization controlled from the Kremlin [4]. "[This] work in Live Journal is extremely important", said Vladislav Surkov, a top aide to Vladimir Putin [5].

He linked claims of creating the teams of "Live Journal fighters" by "Russia the young" to the following source www.grani.ru/Society/m.119861.html.

User Lysy and Piotrus restore this texts when I delete them as original research.

Nowhere in this source such facts are contained. Here is the full text of the article:

Предавший гласности

Национал-большевик Роман Садыхов, Анна Карпюк

www.grani.ru/Society/m.119861.html

UPDATE: I have removed the text per Irpen's counsel as it may violate copyrights.

This is falsification and original research.Vlad fedorov 07:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is right there. See: О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы».said SurkovBiophys 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Falsification and hiding of authors identities

I have properly translated and posted credentials of the authors who alleged the existence of internet brigades.

This alleged phenomenon in RuNet was first written about in 2003 by a group of led by journalist and writer Anna Polyanskaya, a former assistant to assassinated Russian politician Galina Starovoitova., historian Andrey Krivov and a programmer Ivan Lomako .

Earlier it was written by Biophys that this phenomenon was discovered by a group of investigative journalists led by Polyanskaya. However from this "investigative journalists" the only journalist is only Polyanskaya.

The reference of Biophys is as follows:

Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer by Anna Polyanskaya, Andrei Krivov, and Ivan Lomko, Vestnik online, April 30, 2003 (English translation

I post the relevant text from the article:

Анна ПОЛЯНСКАЯ (Франция), Андрей КРИВОВ (Франция), Иван ЛОМКО (Нью-Йорк) ВИРТУАЛЬНОЕ ОКО СТАРШЕГО БРАТА Попытка исследования

Анна Полянская — известный петербургский журналист, участник демократического и правозащитного движения, с 1993 по 1998 год помощник депутата ГосДумы Г.В.Старовойтовой. Работала ведущей публицистической программы «Альтернатива» петербургского телевидения, корреспондентом радио русской службы Би-би-си, публиковалась в различных российских и западных изданиях. С 1998 года живет в Париже.

Андрей Кривов, по образованию историк, бывший советский диссидент, один из руководителей независимой московской группы «Доверие», сотрудник со дня основания неподцензурного журнала «Гласность» Сергея Григорьянца. С 1988 года живет во Франции.

Иван Ломко родился в Москве в 50-е годы, закончил Физический факультет МГПИ, работал учителем в школе, научным сотрудником, затем переквалифицировался в программиста. В 1991 эмигрировал с семьей в США. В настоящее время живет в Нью-Йорке, где работает программистом-аналитиком в финансовой компании.

According to this text:

Anna Polyanskayais a journalist and writer Andrey Krivov is a historian and Ivan Lomako is a programmer.

User Lysy deleted my proper indetification by the following edit. He names a group made up of journalist, historian and a programmer "a group of investigative journalists" which is falsification. Vlad fedorov 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you consult WP:AGF, first. --Lysy^talk 07:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How does it reconciliate with the fact that you have restored false facts without looking into sources?Vlad fedorov 07:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, I would suggest you consult the Fallacy of many questions, which is exactly what your above question is. --Lysy^talk 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to read non-relevant spam, as it is not Wikipedia policy involved. Moreover I usually do not read rubbish marked as "This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources". I consider that you left mine single question on restoring repeatedly false text knowingly unanswered.Vlad fedorov 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of the referenced text

User Lysy constantly deletes the text taken from the Tygodnik Powszechny [[6]] which clarifies their statements. I consider it as a violation of wp:npov.Vlad fedorov 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, if you read the text carefully, I'm sure you'd have noticed that the statement in question referred to a hacking attack against the newspaper's network. Confusing different contexts can be misleading for the reader of the article. --Lysy^talk 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full quote for your convenience: Were all those occurrences from last Thursday and Friday only coincidental? We don’t know it for certain (tracing a source of the attack failed). Only questions and assumptions remain and we are unable to verify them.. --Lysy^talk 07:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And the text "according to Polish specialists in Russian affairs", "according to the same source" refers to what? You distort the meaning of this article by writing that "Tygodnki Powszechny reported". It in fact reported nothing - just published allegations of "unnamed Polish specialists in Russian Affairs". Therefore all accusations are just anonymous allegations. Vlad fedorov 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant text:

http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1547,1220890,dzial.html

"According to Polish specialists in Russian affairs, it was a model example of “the network war”, so to say “an electronic assault” on our communication system, without which none of newspapers can work. Or perhaps it was only a warning – an actual assault would simply blast our whole network.

It could have been also performed to probe the timing of a response, as experts tell us. Then, the Russian secret service made a test on us, the first such one in Poland. “The network war” has been being successfully employed in the area of former USSR countries, where the Internet plays a crucial role as the only independent source of information, free of official authority’s control (the web played such role during revolutions in Georgia as well as the Ukraine, and now – in Byelorussia).

The same source claims that at least a dozen of active Russian agents work in Poland, also investigating Polish internet. Not only do they scrutinize polish websites (like those supporting Byelorussian opposition), but also perform such actions, as – for instance – contributing to internet forums on large portals (like Gazeta.pl, Onet.pl, WP.pl). Labelled as Polish Internet users, they incite anti-Semitic or anti-Ukrainian discussions or disavow articles published on the web". Vlad fedorov 07:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not anonymous. The article is signed by Malgorzata Nocun, Andrzej Brzeziecki and Wojciech Pieciak. --Lysy^talk 07:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Who has signed as Polish specialists in Russian affairs or article's authors? These man published allegations of anonymous "Polish specialists in Russian affairs". What you have written are the authors of the article who published their allegations. And not Polish specialists in Russian affairs. Don't pretend that you don't understand. Ja bardzo dobrze razmawiam po polsku i moge Panu personalnie objasnic.Vlad fedorov 08:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are the authors of the article in TP, and we are using their article as our source. We are not supposed to do original research beyond what the source says. --Lysy^talk 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We speak not about original research right now, but about proper indentification of sources. You mislead the readers, that article authors claimed that Internet brigades appeared in Poland. This is called falsification. Vlad fedorov 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again original research and falsification

User Biophys inserted the following text into the article:

Their ideological work in Live Journal is extremely important, said Vladislav Surkov, a top aide to Vladimir Putin.Military wing of Kremlin (Russian), The New Times, 19 March, 2007

The text which Biophys linked to http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231 about LiveJournal is not found in the text of the article.

This is a second case of original research and falsification by Biophys.Vlad fedorov 07:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is right there. See: О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы».said SurkovBiophys 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Falsification of Usupov citation

User Biophys has inserted the following text:

Alexander Usupovski, head of the analytical department of the Federation Council of Russia dismissed the existence of such brigades as a conspiracy theory and noted that defamation of Russian secret services may force them to work "beyond the law" .

The text of the following citation: "noted that defamation of Russian secret services may force them to work "beyond the law" is a falsification by Biophys.

The original Russian text presents us with the following: Мы никогда не поставим силовые структуры и спецслужбы страны в правовые рамки и под правовой контроль, если не научимся рационально и непредвзято признавать их необходимость и полезность выполняемых ими функций для страны, государства, общества и граждан. Огульное охаивание и нарочитая дискредитация с помощью "аргументов", сквозь которые просвечивают белые нитки, лишь способствует выталкиванию спецслужб во внеправовое пространство и толкает их к беспределу.

Direct translation: "We would never make our country's military organizations and security services work under the rule of law and legal control, if won't learn to recognize rationally and objectively their necessity and usefullness of functions performed by them for the country, state, society and citizens. Sweepeing defamation and intentional discreditation with the help of "arguments", which are obviously false, only contribute to the extrusion of security services outside of rule of law and instigates them to chaos (lawlessness, mayhem - беспредел).

It is evident that Biophys distorted the real meaning of the phrase and quoted it out of context. I have corrected his grossly distorted citation.Vlad fedorov 08:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That was not a direct translation but description of his words. Yes, in accordance with your translation he said that unfair (in his opinion) defamation of secret services would "contribute to the extrusion of security services outside of rule of law". This is also in agreement with my text. Biophys 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research on "active measures"

Biophys inserts in the text allegations of performing active measures by Internet brigades. He inserts such allegations without any source in the preamble of the article and section dedicated to "Methods of Internet brigades". Methods are linked to Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko article "Big brother", but nowhere in the text of this source active measures are mentioned.

This is, therefore, original research and falsification of sources by Biophys.Vlad fedorov 09:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User Lysy behaviour on AfD for this article

After I confronted user Lysy with his deletions from the article of pertinent information about the identities of individuals alleging the existence of brigades and false labelling of them as "investigative journalists", User Lysy made the following edit. This case once again shows that people who falsify most text in the article are voting more strongly for the article itself. User Lysy also was deleting information from Tygodnik Powszechny about the identities of people who claimed the existence of Internet brigades in Poland - they were anonims. Vlad fedorov 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What can I say. Please read WP:AGF again and again. --Lysy^talk 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you could say nothing, your bias and POV are evident.Vlad fedorov 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

POV editing of article under AfD review by AfD nominator

First, Vlad deleted the entire section "Recent developments", which is completely supported by reliable sources and does not violate any copyright. Then, Let's take first paragraph after editing by Vlad: "This alleged phenomenon in RuNet was first described in 2003 by a group of Russian immigrants led by Anna Polyanskaya,[4] a former assistant to assassinated Russian politician Galina Starovoitova.[5], historian Andrey Krivov[2] and a programmer Ivan Lomako.[2] Anna Polyanskaya since 1998 resides in Paris.[2] Andrey Krivov since 1988 lives in France.[2] Ivan Lomako since 1991 lives in USA.[2] The allegations of Polyanskaya and her co-authors have been supported by other immigrants: writer Grigory Svirsky (residing in Canada since 1975) and psychologist Vladimir Bagryansky (emmigrated from Russia in 1989)."

Why it is so important that people are immigrants, that "Anna Polyanskaya since 1998 resides in Paris.[2] Andrey Krivov since 1988 lives in France.[2] Ivan Lomako since 1991 lives in USA.[2]", and that "Grigory Svirsky (residing in Canada since 1975) and psychologist Vladimir Bagryansky (emmigrated from Russia in 1989)"? This is simply insertion of irrelevant information.

Word "alleged" was inserted everywhere, which makes the article not readable. The entire "Criticism section" has been rearranged in a highly misleading way. It is remarkable that AfD nominator can not wait the end of the AfD discussion, but immediately edits the article to make it worse and prove his point. Let's be civil. Let's wait the end of AfD discussion, then discuss everything at the article talk page (if the article is not deleted), and then improve it.Biophys 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain how POV in you distorted imagination equals to "not readable"?Vlad fedorov 15:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have any right to demand to keep your falsifications, original research in this article. You are going into revert war.Vlad fedorov 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by article author Biophys

User Biophys reverts large portions of text without any explanations. Please, look how Biophys falsifies and promotes his original research, misattribtuion and lies. Vlad fedorov 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is: you falsely accused me and others of falsification and wrong translation, for example with regard to involvement of Surkov. But the text is right there. See: О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы».said Surkov. And you deleted an important segment of text. Let's wait until the end of the AfD discussion. This is reasonable. Biophys 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where you taken this text from? Give us links. The sources you cited do not contain such texts!!! Why you do not show sources??? As you rightly mentioned below this is also original research. There are no such words there "О работе в «Живом журнале»:". Please somebody stop Biophys falsifications. Vlad fedorov 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See this link (included in the article references) [7] (Журнал/#6, 19 марта 2007. Боевое крыло Кремля. The New Times стало известно, что Кремль перешел к созданию боевых организаций, направленных на предотвращение возможных уличных выступлений оппозиции в 2007—2008 годах.

It includes in the end of the article the following fragment (Russian):

Избранные места из наказов Владислава Суркова движению «Россия молодая»

О стратегических задачах: «Национализация... да, есть смысл обращения в пользу государства. Это обращение в пользу общества. Надо мозги национализировать. (Чтобы было) общее представление об общей судьбе. Не значит, что все должны строем ходить. Должно быть желание стать лучше. Второе: мы не осмыслили и не очень спешим осмыслить наше прошлое. Нет консенсуса в обществе об оценке тех событий. Пока нет общего представления о прошлом, не будет общего представления о будущем».

Об имидже России за рубежом, о палате лордов и о Совете Федерации: «Убийства заказные в последнее время превращаются почти в обыденное явление. Если не будем что-то менять, изменить имидж не получится. Мы хотим иметь право и их проблемы называть своими именами. Проблема коррупции имеет место и у них. В палате лордов места продаются. У нас — да, тоже места в Совете Федерации продаются! Да! Но у нас, слава богу, не лорды, а у вас лорды!»

О себе и о коллегах-чиновниках: «Я не родился чиновником и, надеюсь, не умру им. Есть представление: собрались, воруют, ни за что не отвечают. Это не совсем так. Я работал много в Чечне, там была война, стреляют. Едет маленький чиновник, что он там может украсть? В него стреляют, я перед такими шляпу снимаю. Если вы следите за новостями, бедолаг чиновников сажают еженедельно. Но их много. Всех не пересажаешь. Говорят, государство коррумпированно, а у нас общество коррумпированно».

Об актуальных задачах дня: «Работа с людьми слова — это наша проблема».

О ДПНИ, «русском бренде» и работе в интернете: «В интернете мы в этом плане проигрываем. Конечно, легче что-то ломать, чем что-то позитивное делать. Это баловство и хулиганство. Не только методы должны быть радикальными, но и цели. Надо выбить из них эту романтику. Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете. Это существенный сектор общения молодежи. У меня такое пожелание: идеологическое понимание есть, сделайте так, чтобы людям было с вами интересно».

О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы».

Пожелания «России молодой»: «Успехов вам на пути защиты суверенной демократии. Вам в этом во всем жить».

______________________________________________________

Сурков благословил «Ультрас»

Почему необходимы структуры наподобие «Ультрас», Владислав Сурков пояснил после выступления одного из активистов «России молодой». Вот этот диалог. Активист «России молодой»: «У меня десять административных правонарушений. Переломным моментом стало убийство Политковской. Мы (на митинге памяти журналиста 8 октября 2006 года. — The New Times) развернули плакат «Оранжевые твари, вы ответите за смерть Политковской!» Нас обозвали фашистами... Для чего я в движении? Сейчас идет война. Выходишь на их (демократов) митингакцию — видишь, что силы небольшие, но опасность большая. Только мы можем удержать. ОМОН не может!»

Владислав Сурков: «Я бы хотел прокомментировать. Мне кажется, он очень верит в то, что говорит. Я могу только поприветствовать такой подход к делу. Надо искать таких ребят. А насчет оппозиции и прочего... С вашего позволения, я ничего этого не слышал. Уверен, ничего они (оппозиция. — The New Times) не сделают, но если события приобретут серьезный характер, то для этого и нужны такие организации, как ваша. Главное — психологический перевес в таком случае. Вы правы, что они все маленькие, но при соприкосновении видно, как они ненавидят свой собственный народ. В каждом народе есть такие люди. Видимо, они зачем-то нужны. Общественно полезные. Но когда они начинают доминировать — это плохо. Важно, чтобы их количество, их напор разбивался о встречную волну здорового организма. Будем надеяться, что их станет еще меньше».

Biophys 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing this source says is that Surkov considers "work" (this is not defined, what the work is) in Live journal to be important.

Nowere in the article anyone says that teams of "Livejournal fighters" are created. This is your original research!!! You also haven't responded on other cases of falsification in the article.Vlad fedorov 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

damaging the talk page

Please see how Biophys has damaged talk page.Vlad fedorov 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Linked to from Slashdot

This page has been linked to from /., so this page may get a lot more attention. As a random visitor from /. myself, I also feel compelled to add to this flamewar discussion with a few points.
1) Do the Chinese and Russian governments have a P.R. department that spends time putting propaganda on the internet? Absolutely. So does the United States. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that every major country does.
2) Is every troll, vandal, flamer, and idiot secretly working for a government? Of course not. People start flame wars/ edit wars for all sorts of reasons, usually due to honest disagreements of opinion. Just look at Wikipedia and slashdot to see all sorts of examples. There are far too many idiots on the web for the government to be hiring them all. Labeling people who disagree with you as 'KGB trolls' is using the very same tactics you accuse them of doing- "Accusations that opponents are working for 'enemies'.
3) Should this article be kept? Probably. This is a real phenomenon. It needs a better title, or be merged with another article (such as information warfare). It also needs to be careful with its sources- you don't want to distort what is actually happening by posting random conspiracy theories.
Paladinwannabe2 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Involvement of Vladislav Surkov

I think it is the key citation that Vladislav Surkov was instructing Russian "internet fighters". He is probably responsible in the Vladimir Putin administration for this work. I did not tell this in the article because that would be original research. Please note his widely-discussed but secret speech "How Russia Should Fight International Conspiracies" and his other activities. Biophys 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And what? No single word about "internet", "Live journal" and anything like that. Everyone could use search function in Internet Explorer to see that you falsify sources!!!! You are liar and you will end up badly, Biophys.Vlad fedorov 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is wrong. See: "О ДПНИ, «русском бренде» и работе в интернете: «В интернете мы в этом плане проигрываем." And so on. Biophys

Of course you are wrong. You have falsified translation and changed directly the citation of Surkov. I have written about it below.Vlad fedorov 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian word интернет means internet.Biophys 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New falsification

Biophys has added a new falsification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_brigades&diff=prev&oldid=121993486 "We are loosing [the fight] in the internet. It is easier to break down things than to invent something positive... Not only our methods, but also our goals must be radical. ...It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet. This is an important communication place of young people. Make them interested in conversations with you."

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

О ДПНИ, «русском бренде» и работе в интернете: «В интернете мы в этом плане проигрываем. Конечно, легче что-то ломать, чем что-то позитивное делать. Это баловство и хулиганство. Не только методы должны быть радикальными, но и цели. Надо выбить из них эту романтику. Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете. Это существенный сектор общения молодежи. У меня такое пожелание: идеологическое понимание есть, сделайте так, чтобы людям было с вами интересно».

It is clearly seen that Biophys has falsified the real meaning of the citation. How could it all happen here? Biophys writes just what he wants to write without any regard to the real meaning. And on such half-baked work we gonna make an article? It's disgusting. How could it happen in democratic envireonment where all opinions should be taken? How could it be that in environment calling itself democratic lies and falsifications fly without any regard to the evidence, facts and rule of law?Vlad fedorov 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Wrong. My translation was correct. Yes, I omitted a couple of phrases. We can include them, and the meaning will be exactly the same. Sorry, I have no time to refute all your absurd claims right now (can do it later if the article is not deleted). You are trying to exploit the fact that most wikipedians do not know Russian. Biophys 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, see reference 8 (grani.ru): Biophys 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Р.С.: В "России молодой" есть идеологический отдел, им руководит Илья Андросов, но на совещаниях он появлялся очень редко. Если Мищенко просил специально, то да, но так это его не касалось. Его главная задача – работа в Интернете. Еcть так называемые "ЖЖ-бойцы", действующие на форумах, на сайтах, в блогах. А еще идеологический отдел занимается выступлениями в СМИ.

Г.Р.: Если можно, поподробнее о действиях в Интернете. Есть специальные люди, которые за деньги или в порядке партийной дисциплины сидят в форумах и т.д. и высказывают соответствующие мнения?

Р.С.: Да, это их работа. За нее идут специальные надбавки.

Г.Р.: А о каких деньгах примерно идет речь?

Р.С.: Деньги в "России молодой" платят не очень большие. Оклад сотника составляет 3000 рублей. Но активистам на руки денег не выдают - их получает сотник, который выводит людей на акцию. За каждую жесткую акцию с одного человека он получал 400 рублей, за обычную акцию – 100 рублей. И считается это приблизительно - не по людям, а по числу десятников и представленных десятником ячеек. Тысячники получали примерно 15 тысяч рублей. Все держались за эту работу, поскольку особо ничего делать не надо, а деньги текут – почему бы и нет? Можно работать где угодно, а лишний приработок не помешает.

So, everything is correct about Live Journal (Russian abbreviation "ЖЖ"). See also reference 9. Biophys 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to Chinese page for "government agent on internet" page

- #) There is a wiki page in Chinese related to this issue "網上特工" or "網特". Its qualify may not sufficient to be imported here but it is useful to have a proper link to that subject. This is not merely a translation, but extra source can be provided. I have no idea how to make this change but it should be useful. - http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E7%89%B9%E5%8A%A1 - #) I have no idea what happened on Russian blogs, but the harassment and distraction made by internet troll in Hongkong is real and painful. We do not know who is really a internet troll behind the anonymous network, and who knows anyway, but the key issue is they write much faster than any internet addict, around the clock, and plenty of distraction tactic, and the pain on normal internet blogger is real. This point alone is enough to made this page not to be deleted, but to be improved. Csmth 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)csmth 1:56am (HKT)

Perhaps you should know about computer programs (like Wikipedia "bots") that can work as internet trolls: appear at certain times, send standard messages, delete certain content, etc.Biophys 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

'Due to their response and specific reply, I can say sure they are not computer programs. I have personally encountered some of internet troll suspect, and they do able to reply others with specific context. It is impossible to do so in current level of technology. On the other hand, I cannot prove they are human. I simply call them internet troll which does not means they can be proven as human. It might be God's act as well, because when I was a internet addict I just cannot keep their pace. It is beyond the mental of just one person.Csmth 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)csmth

Reply to Biophys reply

You have falsely translated the following:

"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".

And Biophys has written that he claimed "to protect authorities" which is both false translation and falsification!!!! Vlad fedorov 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed "the". Everything else is correct, someone else (not me or you) could translate this better.Biophys 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything else is incorrect - you have falsified translation and haven't corrected it.!!! Vlad fedorov 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone just corrected this a little. Fine, there is no much difference with previous version.Biophys 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between "not only to protect" and "not to protect". Your falsification is confirmed now, since you haven't even apologized for this.Vlad fedorov 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your translation is somewhat inaccurate as well, Vlad, but in the other direction. In English, "not to protect the authorities - this is understood" means that it is understood that the point is not to protect the authorities. In Russian, "не защищать власти — это само собой" (in the context in which it's used) means that it is understood that the point is to protect the authorities. Therefore, the correct translation if you want to keep the original meaning intact is "not just to protect". Esn 07:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, that exactly means the opposite. Surkov tells that it is understood that they shouldn't protect the authorities, but to attract the people to their group by campaigning. There is no place for free translation here - you should translate directly without any distortions. Vlad fedorov 03:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree with your disagreement. You can't always machine-translate from one language to another and expect the same meaning to carry over. I believe that this is the case here - the English meaning of a "direct" translation is not the same as the Russian meaning of those words. So what are we going to do about it? Would you agree to asking for help from some (hopefully impartial) Russian-English translators? Esn 04:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to give an update, I'm currently asking for help in resolving this matter over here. Esn 05:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Esn! Of course it would be great if someone more professional than me or Vlad translated this. Right now, it is even difficult to understand the meaning of this text. Obviously, one can not translate from one language to another "word to word". Biophys 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At last, someone neutral could translate this phrase -- "Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете". There is no word "only" in Russian text as Biophys translated, and there is no phrase "to protect the authorities", only "not to protect authorities". Vlad fedorov 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to being categorized as someone "not neutral", as I believe that I've tried to resolve conflicts and follow wiki policy on this article (in fact, I've specifically stated many times that I don't believe that this theory is necessarily true). This is far from being my main focus on wikipedia - that, for the past year or so, has been animation. But be that as it may, I recognize the need for input from more editors; the opinion of any one person is always suspect, no matter who it is. Esn 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

falsifications and original research in the article

I would like to note that Biophys failed to give his sources:

1. ) Falsification of "investigative journalists" which are journalist, historian and programmer in reality.
2. ) Deletions of proper identification of sources of information for allegations by Tygodnik Powszechny.
3. ) Falsifications of Usupov citation.
4. ) Original research on "active measures". Vlad fedorov 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, please familiarize yourself with the term investigative journalism first. Thanks. As for your out-of-context citing the excerpt from Tygodnik Powszechny, I've already explained it twice to you and this should suffice. --Lysy^talk 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I left above my answer about Usupovsky citation. The overall meaning of my text was correct.Biophys 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, people who conduct journalism are called journalists. Krivov and Lomako are represented in the article as a historian and a programmer. Meditate over the meaning of the words journalist, historian and programmer over and over. Perhaps, this would fix your understanding of difference in these words. By the way, who are those Polish plumbers in the EU? Investigative journalists or troll squads?Vlad fedorov 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Poles suck in anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk.[8] This is something that is deeply imbued in their tradition, their mentality. Like their loathing of Russia. The two things are not connected, of course. But that, too, is something very deep, like their hatred of Am Yisrael. Today, though, there are elements [in Poland] that are cleansed of this anti-Semitism." Former Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir in an interview on September 8, 1989, Friday Jerusalem Post Vlad fedorov 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this racist quotation?

Vlad, I have found comparing your block log with that of Biophys to be enlightening. I suggest you change your approach to editing this article. I have lost track of how many times you have accused Biophys of "falsification", and your hyperbole on this talk page makes for some sad reading. Appleseed (Talk) 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest others not invoke anyone's block logs as part of the discussion as this is nothing but an attempt of intimidation. Being blocked is no fun. Being unfairly blocked, and most users consider all their blocks unfair, is humiliating. Being reminded about it does not help in calming down the hot discussion. --Irpen 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I stand by my other comments. Appleseed (Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

translation of the quote

Please see here his edit. Slightly different translation or rude falsification? Vlad fedorov 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, take a look and judge. Note that my previous text was not a direct translation.Biophys 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I soon may be blocked

I just would like to let everyone know that I soon may be blocked for "using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". See User_talk:Biophys#I_soon_may_be_blocked_by_administrators. If that happens, can anyone improve and resubmit this article? Biophys 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I could try... although I'm very busy with Ukrainian articles. BTW, a question on article: have you mentioned the reverse Russian phenomena: numerous cases of persecuting people that criticize Putin in the Web?AlexPU 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, AlexPU, but I am already back. You can continue working with Ukrainian articles. Take a look here: [9] - nice photo of Timoshenko and also this: [10] Biophys 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was prosecuted for publications in internet?

The following people were prosecuted for posting articles in internet forums/web sites: Boris Stomakhin, Stanislav Dmitrievsky (see Russian-Chechen Friendship Society), and Vladimir Rakhmankov.

When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov published a satiric article on the Internet calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". Rakhmankov was found guilty and fined by the court. [11]

Biophys 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there's more IMHO:

• the ethnic-Ukrainian resident of Novosibirsk (posted really Russophobic messages in connection with Putinism, but the procedure of persecution is interesting)
• Terentiev, the musician in Syktyvkar, recently under investigation for criticizing the militsiya in forum.

If this stuff is useful, feel free to move it elsewhere.AlexPU 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not within the scope of this article, but within the scope of an as-yet-uncreated article about internet censorship in Russia (there are other such articles for other countries). This article, meanwhile, is not about censorship but information flooding. Esn 07:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research not supported by sources. Stomakhin wasn't a blogger, as well as Rakhmankov and Dmitrievsky. Vlad fedorov 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edits of Chinese internet brigades

I have certain reservations about these edits. First, the article begins from Russian Internet because it goes in chronological order: first, the teams were found and described in Russia, and only later in China. Second, you suggest to extend the "Chinese" part. This is fine. You are very welcome! But instead of extending, you make it shorter. Third, this part has certain logic: the Party leader made an order, and this order is executed by various means including formation of internet brigades.Biophys 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

About the "first" thing, yes you do have a point. But on the other hand, the mainland China section is less controversial and better-documented in the English media, so it also makes sense to put it first. I really don't think that this is a huge thing one way or the other, though I do lean towards mentioning it first simply because it's the least controversial one and will be more easily understood by the average reader. The article is organized by country anyway, so it should be easy to just change them around later. Also, maybe he did it because "C" comes before "R". I don't know. Esn 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• (Third) The logic has a little hole: The order that Fearless Leader gave in the article was made in 2007. Formation of the teams goes to 2005. At least, that's what the article says, but (First) in addition to what the other fellow said about which section should go where, I think Chinese teams were uncovered in 2002. Yes, I will try to add info on that, so (Second) making it shorter is temporary. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed title

I do not know who disputed the title of this article. Please propose a better title. Let's discuss it here and fix the problem if there is a problem.Biophys 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What an elaborate lie. The auhor of this article doesn't know where to look at AfD for this article! Vlad fedorov 04:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The AfD is irrelevant to such discussion, as it was the article submitted for deletion and not the title of the article. Please propose a better title and we can discuss it here. Otherwise please do not submit unconstructive and unnecessarily critical commentary, Vlad fedorov. Kuroji 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Terms

It's interesting, how a distinction is made between "Anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism." and Russian patriotism? Surely, the latter may seem anti-americanism for an outside observer, although it doesn't automatically include anti-americanism!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.80.145 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 April 2007

Speaking of terms used in this the article... Vlad federov, what does it matter what someone's immigration status is? It seems that you're trying to use this as a form of slander against them! Kuroji 04:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am just writing facts that are relevant to the matter. People should know everything relevant to the authors of the allegations. Your violation of WP:AGF in claiming that I slander someone is laughable, since Polayanskaya, Lomako and Krivov themselves write in their article on Internet brigade that they are immigrants. Perhaps, you should read the sources sometimes beforehand? Vlad fedorov 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the immigration status of these individuals is not relevant to this article in question. If you are so concerned about this, perhaps you should write a biographical article on them. Meanwhile, if you're going to accuse me of violating any policies... pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Whine somewhere else; I'm not interested in listening to your clearly biased points of view. Come back when you can grow up and be not only civil but also neutral. Kuroji 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edits by Ellol

I strongly disagree with these edits for the following reasons. First, in the previous version it was (1) "First publications"; (2) "Criticism and discussion" (of these first publications!); (3) Brigades on the Polish Internet; (4) LiveJournal fighters, and so on. The moving of "Criticism and discussion" section creates false impression that criticism is about all parts, while it is not (chronologically and logically). Second, he gives too much space to claims by Usupovsky, a non-notable person that has no article in WP.Biophys 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, you are suppressing critical voices, and therefore violating NPOV policy. Usupovsky is not the less relevant person as Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko, at least they have no pages in Wikipedia as well. Usupovsky's critique is reasonable, he made valid statements, and proves them. Usupovsky's article is perhaps on of the best critique sources about Internet brigades.

If you continue erasing it, I will consider reporting on the Administrators board. It's not a threat, it's warning. ellol 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Bio, although a shorter summary of criticizm by U. can certainly be added, assuming his reliability is shown. But a long section on his views doesn't seem notable or of due weight.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not suppressing anything. The critical opinion by Usupovsky has been already included in this article. But you simply repeat his opinion twice in two separate sections. This is simply insertion of remotely relevant text/opinion twice by non-notable person. Besides, the link to Russian journal does not work at this moment, at least from my computer. So, this is basically unreferenced. Biophys 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC) This is simply a matter of creation good article. Of course, I could cite the entire article by Polynanskaya in more detail. But then the volume of this article would be ten time greater. Would that be good?Biophys 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

O'K. Thank you, ellol. I made "Criticism" (by Usupovsky) section in proper place to reflect your comments. I believe his critical opinion is properly reflected now.Biophys 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC) You can expand this criticism section. But instead of inserting huge unreadable text as you just did, one should only briefly summarize Usupovsky arguments.Biophys 03:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I want to reproduce your text here to show that it is hardly appropriate and must be replaced by a very brief summary (which I think I did):

I replaced my original version with short summary of Yusuposvkiy's points. I note that 1) Criticism section is far smaller than the statement about Web-brigades, which it criticizes. 2) You only created new sections in your previous version of the article, without changing a word there. Your version of Yusupovskiy's critique is, how good and necessary are security services. But it's completely irrelevant, in fact. Whether they are "good" or "bad", should be discussed in some other article like FSB. 3) The link to the Yusupovsky's article can't be opened -- it's surely the work of Internet liberal brigades! 4) Oh, thank you, too. ellol 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a question? Does this: "(a former assistant to assassinated Russian politician Galina Starovoitova[9])", add credibility to words of Polyanskaya in your opinion? ellol 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also very interested, do "Russian brigades in Polish Internet" speak Polish or Russian? And how did people recognize them as "Russian brigades"? ellol 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

---

In April 2003 Russian political scientist Alexander Usupovsky published an article in "Russian journal", in which he criticized the original publication by Polyanskaya, Lomko and Krivov.

Usupovsky said that he himself has met "an unfair method in polemics", when "bearers of liberally democratic views (or to say better that complex of myths which is not well-deserved called liberalism)", after exhausting one's argument dub the opponent as agent of FSB; and said his personal experience at forums didn't allow to get to such conclusions. He said he himself had claims against Russian security services but they lie in a different plane (as any world security service practice tracking of extremism, narco- and human traffic, and fighting against children porno).

He referred to the article by Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko as an opportunity to "show at a certain example the demarcation strip between analytics and journalist imitation of it".

Usupovsky responded on authors' claim that Runet is "outstanding at the level of evil and hatred towards the US", by saying that it's authors' problem if they didn't notice the difference between "dislike of hegemonic policy of the United States" and "quite friendly attitude towards usual Americans". Without denying "the alarming degree of aggression, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and immorality in Runet" (which he thinks may arise from that illusion that there's anonymity and absense of censorship allows to speak out what man would never say on public), he sais that it's a common statement, rather that characteristics of one side. Usupovsky stated there's no "lack of gloat over e.g. Russian losses in Chechnya", and no lack of "bitter malice towards sovoks, undermen, Russians and Russia in remarks of some our former compatriots from Israel, US and other countries." And when the speech touched Arabs or Palestineans, according to Usupovsky, "beasts" and "not people" are the best epithets of many (not all) western participants of forums. Usupovsky was especially touched by common "briefings of hate", when Russian, American and Israeli virtual patriots condemn in unison "Checheno-Palestino-Islamic terrorists".

Usupovsky claimed there's "logics of antitheses of extremal journalists mindset: either apology of Bush's US and spitting on home country, either totalitarian secret service". Usupovsky also said, that he risks to be reputed as a "supporter of totalitarianism", but he clearly "has difficulties to discern signs of totalitarianism" in the following passages "used by authors to prove existence of totalitarian mind": "The Russian special services have always existed, just as they existed, currently exist and always will exist in the countries of the West", and "The FSB is a 'special service' just like the FBI in the U.S., the MOSSAD in Israel or MI-6 in Great Britain."

According to Usupovsky, authors claim 1998-1999 was the turning point in attitude of virtual masses, but they elude any mention of the 1998 default, which "crowned the liberal decade", "preferring to put the blame for change of minds on mysterious bad guys and Big Brother." According to Usupovsky, authors also exclude from their interpretation of events "other, less far-fetched hypotheses", such as groups of some "skinheads", "naz-bols" or simply unliberal students, acting from computer classes of their institutes.

Commenting on authors' blame on "creators of positive image of Russia" trying to "nip independent public opinion in the bud", Usupovsky compared authors, "interpreting independent public opinion in spirit of irreconcilable antagonism with positive image of Russia", to "three clones of [[12]], transferred in time". He said that "liberals" from "extremal journalism", "accustomed to the total mastership in virtual and informational space" were "seemingly not prepared to total sobering of residents", and "replied to cracks in their comfortable worldview with attempts of building myths". Usupovsky noted it could be a symptom of "marginalization of the Russian liberal mind".

According to Usupovski: "We would never make our country's military organizations and security services work under the rule of law and legal control, if won't learn to recognize rationally and objectively their necessity and usefulness for the country, state, society and citizens. Sweeping defamation and intentional discreditation with the help of "arguments", which are obviously false, only contribute to the extrusion of security services outside of rule of law and instigates them to chaos".

DPNI

May I ask a childinh question? Biophys, do you understand what's the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, and who is Alexander Potkin? Have you read their texts? Take a read: [13], [14]. You should know, who are you protecting. ellol 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not protecting anyone.Biophys 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, that Surkov's long statement was about struggle with DPNI, who are acting more and more actively in the Internet. My personal opinion (badly sources, however) is that it's a usual nationalistic organization acting under a legal framework. ellol 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may see a fresh example of activity of an DPNI activist. ellol 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think DPNI is a much, much lesser evil than Surkov, if an evil at all. --Humanophage (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The DPNI is an exrimist organization, that wants to destroy the Russia altogether with the liberals. I mean they both want to destroy the Russia rather than to destroy the liberals. --Javalenok (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, not again!

Everything is sourced and has been checked many times by many people during previous discussions. If any links do not work now, this is not my fault. See this fragment cited above at this talk page not by me, but Vlad Fedorov:

О ДПНИ, «русском бренде» и работе в интернете: «В интернете мы в этом плане проигрываем. Конечно, легче что-то ломать, чем что-то позитивное делать. Это баловство и хулиганство. Не только методы должны быть радикальными, но и цели. Надо выбить из них эту романтику. Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете. Это существенный сектор общения молодежи. У меня такое пожелание: идеологическое понимание есть, сделайте так, чтобы людям было с вами интересно».

There is also another source provided in this article: [15]:

В "России молодой" есть идеологический отдел, им руководит Илья Андросов, но на совещаниях он появлялся очень редко. Если Мищенко просил специально, то да, но так это его не касалось. Его главная задача – работа в Интернете. Еcть так называемые "ЖЖ-бойцы", действующие на форумах, на сайтах, в блогах. А еще идеологический отдел занимается выступлениями в СМИ.

Г.Р.: Если можно, поподробнее о действиях в Интернете. Есть специальные люди, которые за деньги или в порядке партийной дисциплины сидят в форумах и т.д. и высказывают соответствующие мнения?

Р.С.: Да, это их работа. За нее идут специальные надбавки.

Г.Р.: А о каких деньгах примерно идет речь?

Р.С.: Деньги в "России молодой" платят не очень большие. ... А что касается самой встречи с Сурковым, "Россия молодая" тогда в общем-то прокололась, потому что люди очень быстро стали уходить. Там было просто скучно, пламенные речи Суркова никто особенно слушать не хотел, народ туда насильно согнали. Потом мы уже поехали на личную встречу в узком составе. За две недели до этого приезжал заместитель Суркова Никита Иванов, а теперь Сурков пришел лично все проконтролировать. Пришли в офис "Румола", сели в конференц-зале, подъехал Сурков, и началось личное общение.

На этой встрече было не более 25 человек.

By the way, link to Usupovski does not work. Do you suppose to delete everything about it?Biophys 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So, could you please, copy and paste here fragments from article by Usupovsky that you are citing? (like Vlad Fedorov copied fragments from article mentioning Surkov?)Biophys 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's my fault, I was not enough accurate. So I restore thing about "He reported, among other things, that teams of "LiveJournal fighters" are created by "Russia the young"." But not teams, simply LJ-fighters. ellol 14:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely it wouldn't take me much time... Of course, english texts are not direct quotes:

• He supposed, that officeers of GRU or FSB have more topical problems, than "comparing virtual penises" with liberals and emigrants. Но воспринимать тезис всерьез у меня не было оснований, поскольку я по наивности считал что у офицеров ГРУ или ФСБ есть более актуальные задачи и занятия, нежели полемическое "меряние виртуальными пиписьками" с кучкой досужих либералов и эмигрантов на какой-нибудь "Ленте.ру" или "Русском журнале".
• There is difference between "dislike of hegemonic policy of the United States" at Russian forums and "quite friendly attitude towards usual Americans". Если помимо злорадства, наши "экстремальные журналисты" не заметили разницы между неприятием гегемонистской политики США и вполне дружеским отношением к рядовым американцам, - то это их, а не Рунета, проблемы. Aggression and xenophobia doesn't characterize one side but is a common place of polemics, well met not only among Russian patriots, but also Russian emigrants from US, Israel, or other countries. Не буду отрицать наличия тревожащего градуса агрессивности, ксенофобии, антисемитизма, аморализма (возможно иллюзия бесцензурности и анонимности выплескивает из подсознания такое, что внутренний цензор никогда не позволит заявить публично, вслух) - есть такой прискорбный факт в форумах Рунета. Но он, увы, является скорее общим местом полемики, чем характеристикой одной из сторон. Нет недостатка и в злорадстве иного толка - по поводу, например, очередных потерь российской армии в Чечне, - или в проявлениях звериной злобы к "совкам", "недочеловекам", русским, России в репликах некоторых бывших соотечественников из Израиля, США и других стран.
• Change of attitude of virtual masses in 1998-1999 could be caused by Russian financial collapse which "crowned liberal decade", rather than "mysterious bad guys". Авторы называют 1998 -1999 г. тем моментом, когда в настроениях виртуальных масс наметился перелом. При этом почему-то избегают любого упоминания об увенчавшем либеральное десятилетие "дефолте", предпочитая свалить всю вину за изменение настроений на мистических злодеев и "Большого брата".
• Authors exclude from their interpretation of events all other hypotheses, such as internet activity of a group of some "skinheads", nazbols or simply unliberal students; or hackers able to get IP adresses of their opponents. Авторы исключают из своей интерпретации событий также и все другие конспирологические гипотезы, менее натянутые: например, о выходе в сеть группы каких-нибудь "скинов", "нацболов" или просто нелиберально настроенных студентов, засевших в компьютерных классах институтов и интернет-кафе; или о хакерах, способных добыть ИП коды оппонентов...
• According to Yusupovskiy, authors treat "independence of public opinion" in spirit of irreconcilable antagonism with "positive image of Russia". Пытаясь привязать параноидальные конструкции к повестке "реальной политики", авторы переходят от третирования "распоясавшихся" ксенофобов к разоблачению - цитирую - "создателей позитивного образа России", пытающихся "ликвидировать в зародыше независимое общественное мнение". После этого кульминационного пассажа стало казаться, что авторы статьи, трактующие "независимость общественного мнения" в духе непримиримого антагонизма с "позитивным образом России", - это просто три клона Смердякова, научившиеся "стучать по клаве" и перемещенные во времени.

ellol 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose to expand the section about Chinese brigades. There are 300,000 employees. There are official propaganda agencies. It's very interesting. ellol 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

I propose to rename the section "Russian Internet brigades" to "Theory of Russian internet brigades". Like you it or not, it's conspiracy theory. 1) It's supported only by a strict group -- liberal intellectuals with pro-Western orientation. 2) There were no leakages of official information, which would be inevitable with such massive organization. 3) Authors didn't prove that any other reasons are not suitable. All described events could be done by gangs of hooligans, it's not necessary to invent FSB involvement. ellol 07:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between Chinese teams and "Russian brigades". For chinese teams there are official claims: "In the information age and the internet age, the most important and critical mission in front of us is how to seize the initiative on internet opinion and how to seize the high point of internet opinion," the paper quoted the deputy director of the local propaganda department, Zhang Fenglin, as saying. For Russian brigades none.

"virtual penises" and other changes by ellol

Since I am too involved here, it would good if other users checked recent changes inserted by ellol, such as claims about "virtual penises" and other things. Do such changes improve the quality of this article? Biophys 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I point out that in Russian version of the article Internet brigades are undoubtedly marked as conspiracy theory. ellol 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now we have seven sources about this phenomenon in Russia, and only one of them claims this to be "conspiracy theory". Thus, it is a minority opinion. Besides, no one claims this to be "conspiracy theory" in China, and this is article about international phenomenonBiophys 19:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one more facet. Even if Web Brigades exist in Russia, then, does their activity contradict the existing laws, or not. And you know the answer: the only article which may be adopted here is incitement of ethnic hatred, and perhaps, hacker attacks on some sites. ellol 21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Biophys, do you want an experiment? You are a scientist, you should enjoy one. Go to http://revolver.ru It's a normal discussion site. Enter any thread -- there are always one or two recent threads about politics, and type wordly the following text: "U.S. is a normal democratic country which brings peace and stability to the world. Russia is an authoritarian country and that poses immediate threat to itself and the whole world." Enjoy the results. I bet that the second answer, without any FSB team, would make you feeling very uncomf-ly. But you can say that it's some FSB team acting. And also watch for the results. ellol 07:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

...do you normally suggest such inane behavior? Come now, be serious. Kuroji 09:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a normal point for a discussion. There are plenty of viewpoints, and you may as easily meet russian patriots as russian emigrants. There are far more offensive points, as towards the U.S. equally towards Russia. But I think it's abnormal when a person writes about that, what he hasn't ever met in his life. And Russian internet political forums are much different from e.g. Wikipedia talks, they resemble more some English political forums where people don't ceremony much with each other. ellol 10:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you write in Wikipedia and base those writings on your real life experience, that's called original research. Silly ellol, no cookie for you today. Kuroji 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain in future from personal jokes and/or insults. We have here not a night club, not even a Russian political forum, but a Wikipedia talk, and should act correspondingly. I'm sorry, I and Biophys had some tensions which are long over now. Perhaps I should be more correct, but at least that my suggestion is really only a suggestion of an experiment. ellol 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm being sociable. I was suggesting in a friendly manner that you need to conform with WP:NOR. You seemed to imply that one must have experience with something they have not dealt with in person in life, while this is hardly the case and Wikipedia exists so people can contribute by sourcing other media. If you don't like it... oh well. I'm not altering my behavior for your sake. Good day. Kuroji 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kuroji, you are right. Of course, one can write articles about what one've never met in person by using sources. But, in that case, especially when the topic is controversial, one should avoid categorical claims. I mean, writing e.g. "Source A claims Blah-Blah-Blah" rather than simply "Blah Blah Blah".

Btw, now the article lacks some kind of history section -- I mean, something like "Prior to 1999 attitude at forums was mostly liberal, then up to 2003 there was a sharp change of attitude, which some call 'totalitarian' and ascribe to activity of FSB brigades, while others explain by general disappointment in liberal ideas which followed 1998 financial collapse and ascribe that to rise of national consciousness. After years clashes of liberal and patriotic segments of Russia's society lost the sharpness of early 2000s, but the situation gained new trends -- spread of activity of Russian ultra-nationalists, generally united under organization Movement Against Illegal Immigration, spread of internet activity of people supporting Marches of the Discontented, and idea of Web brigades started living its own life in rumours and opinions, not directly connected to events described by authors of the original concept." Of course, it's a rough estimation, this should be written by someone better understanding the situation. May be, we should have a separate article Political internet activity in Russian Federation. ellol 11:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't propose Biophys to take part in a political discussion and write about that in Wikipedia. But to take part and perhaps broaden his worldview. Perhaps not. But that's is no my deal. ellol 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In Wikis article about "Consp thories" it's sad that theories that can be treated as conspirative must have next properties -

1-a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators - true.

2- activity is done by secret team - true.

3- and not by broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities - true.

4- replacement of democracy by conspiracy - true.

5- seldom supported by any conclusive evidence - true.

6- no institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than on secretive coalitions of individuals - true.

7- The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy. - true.

So all signs of consp theory, listed in Wiki's "[[[Conspiracy theory]]]" article are present in this "Web brigade" theory.

So I will add such statement in article in a few days, if there wil be no objection.

And before you say - I don't think that it will be OR - it's rather simple synthesis, which can be done on Wikipedia /I saw it in the Rules somewhere/.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Western services

The following article ([16]) describes possible influence on Wikipedia by Western (US, UK, Israeli) services.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that expanding this article would be better then writing a separate one. IIRC one of the criticism of this piece was its concentration on Russia and China; this source gives us the opportunity to address this criticism.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, go on with it. I will correct you if needed. Not that I have a special favor towards the U.S., but I think a decent opponent wouldn't harm. ellol 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you regard OhmyNews as a reliable source. Author of this article, Dr. Ludwig De Braeckeleer "has worked for the Department of Energy, taught at Duke University and Washington University in Seattle. He has a PhD in Science (Nuclear Physics) and currently teaches in Bogota, Colombia". This man also claimed that Lockerbie bombing evidence was fabricated by CIA, although Kadaffi actually admitted that he organized the bombing and paid a compensation, if I remember this correctly. What kind of credibility he has? Fine, one still can use his article as a source.Biophys 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted however that all Ludwig De Braeckeleer's statements are either pure speculation (the situation with Entebbe Operation article could be simply a result of editing by people with strong POV), or he makes a reference to blog-type sites, such as Wikipedia-Watch.org to justify strong statements. I personally do not to use such sources and leave this matter up to you, ellol.Biophys 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I proposed help. But if you don't need it, what's the question? So, please, stop fucking my brains. Anyway, until you realize Daosism as one of the most important threads in the modern Russian culture, and following one's dao as the highest priority for everyone associating him/ herself with Russian history, traditions and culture, I don't think we should ever talk.ellol 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I can make this edit since no one else wants to do it. But I think main claim of this source is not about Russian versus Western agencies. It is about the alleged influence of these agencies in Wikipedia. I personally do not like the publication by Ludwig De Braeckeleer, to say this politely. I am also hesitant because some people claimed "Internet brigades" article to be "an attack page" (but it is not), and such edit could fuel their suspicions. But to be fair, let's include this. We have article Criticism of Wikipedia. So, there is nothing wrong about such things.Biophys 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New data: [17] ellol 13:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See also [18],[19],[20],[21]Biophys 15:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If true, those CIA guys are idiots: they edited from their work place instead of home computers. Main question: what exactly did they do in WP? If they employed aggressive strategies (such as RR warring) or deleted valid information (e.d. did disinformation), such activities should be described in this article. If they improved WP content, it does not belong here. As about conflicts of interest in WP - this is nothing new.Biophys 15:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One of publications says: "Staff on CIA computers have been found editing entries on the biography of former presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon" Since the presidents are former, this does not represent even a potential conflict of interest. Did this CIA staff intimidated other WP users by any means, did they inserted disinformation in WP, did they vandalize WP pages by deleting relevant texts supported by reliable sources (as many "partisans" do here)? If they did, they belong to "Internet brigades".Biophys 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletions

I think the repeated unilateral deletions of this text are completely inappropriate. This material was suggested by Piotrus and supported by Ellol and me. The deletion is against consensus.Biophys (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

People, you continue deletions of the sources, even after nominating this article for deletion. Let's discuss the problem here and try to find consensus. Like I said, the publications by BBC News and Reuters are relevant because they describe a phenomenon of state-sponsored information fighter teams at the internet. The subject is also related to astroturfing. Biophys (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, with all due respect, you have a great propensity to original research. There is no such english term. You invented it. Period. `'Míkka>t 15:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not address any of my points, such an article about a phenomenon. If you suggest renaming, what a better name would be in your opinion?Biophys (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for noticing my propensity to original research. That is what I do in real life.Biophys (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

More sources

O'K, let's cite some Russian sources, such as this interview of well known Andrei Soldatov (author of book "New games of patriots" about espionage) which he gave to even more famous Yevgenia Albats at the Echo of Moscow. It tells the following:

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Тогда я хочу спрсоить А.Солдатова - Андрей, много ходит разговоров о том, что существуют так называемые "веб-бригады", что в интернете на разных форумах сидят профессиональные люди, которые вводят дезорганизацию в работе форума, вводят разговор, дискуссию в сторону уже совсем чего-то непотребного – есть даже исследования, сделаннные французами на эту тему. Что вы можете по этому поводу скзаать?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Во-первых, касается это не только формуров. Есть более определенные вещи – например, если вспомните. Такая технология использовалась во время войны в Ираке – буквально за два месяца до взятия Багдада появился сайт, посвященный иракской войне, где группа людей, которые назывались сотрудниками ГРУ, опубликовали то, что они называли "сводками руководителя ГРУ", где расписывалось, как американцы проигрывают войну. Там указывались какие-то данные - вот еще 5 танков подбили, все это на фоне антиамериканской истерии, все это очень хорошо потреблялось. И, в принципе, этот сайт закончил существование только тогда, когда американцы уже вошли в Багдад, и окзаалось, что все эти подбитые танки то ли были, то ли нет - вобещм, результат не изменило. Второй момент тоже очень любопытный - если вспомните события в Нальчике, то буквально там была очень интересная цепь событий, когда буквально на следующий день вышло заявление МИД о том, что сайт "Кавказ-центр" это очень плохой ресурс, а через два дня появилось две команды, котоыре обозвали себя хакерами, две команды людей, которые формально независимы от государства – такое объединение молодежи, правда, очень скоординированное - которые стали заниматсья тем, что стали организовывать хакерские атаки на "Кавказ-Центр". То есть, активность может быть любая. Это может касатсья не только контента, но вот, например, "забанить" "Кавказ-Центр".

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Но есть веб-бригады, или это придумка испуганных интернет-пользователей?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Я не думаю, что это придумка. Потому что я по собственному сайту могу судить - у меня происходили такие моменты. Особенно, когда происходят такие события, как "Норд-Ост", например.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Где и кто этим занимается?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Я думаю, что сложно четко сказать, при каких управлениях точно эти люди существуют – там разные структуры называют, называют Центр информационной безопасности, еще там есть некие моменты.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Это какие федеральные структуры?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Понимаете, у нас были две структуры, которые занимаются интернетом - ФАПСИ и ФСБ. Потом, когда ФАПСИ не стало, то главная такая структура, о которой все забыли, это так называемый "Третий главк", назывался он Главное управление радиоэлектронной разведки на средствах связи.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Бывшее 16-е управление КГБ.

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Да, страшная структура. Ну, как страшная - такая эффективная структура, она занималась лурдесом, Камранью, в том числе, они занималсь разведкой в интернет. Все это влилось в состав ФСБ, так что сейчас фактически можно сказатЬ, что есть одна структура, которая этим занимается. Плюс еще МВД, в котором есть соответствующее управление, где тоже сидят люди довольно компетентыне, которые умеют этим заниматься.

A brief summary:

1. both experts on Russian intelligence/FSB matters believe that "Internet brigades" do exist;
2. one such team of people, who called themselves GRU officers, was actively involved in a disinformation campaign prior to US invasion of Iraq according to Soldatov;
3. the teams are involved in hackers attacks, and they attacked Soldatov's own site during the Moscow theater hostage crisis;
4. the teams are coordinated by the Russian department of Signals intelligence, which is a part of the FSB and has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department;
5. there are also such teams in Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

This is not my OR.Biophys (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some info about Andrei Soldatov. "Андрей Солдатов, журналист, руководитель сайта, посвященного спецслужбам мира, российским в том числе, "Агентура.Ру", и автор книги, хорошей книги, вместе с Ириной Бараган - "Новые игры патриотов, спецслужбы меняют кожу - 1991-2004 гг.",Biophys (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An example of discussion at the Internet presumably involving members of such "brigade". They react to a statement by Andrei Piontkovsky. However one need to know Russian language, including curse slander to understand what they are talking about.Biophys (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No one argues that there is such conspiracy theory in Russia. You may freely develop a russia-related article at your will. `'Míkka>t 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then please explain, why did you revert my last several edits, including even categorization of this article as a "conspiracy theory"? Biophys (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

categorization is kept. `'Míkka>t 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you get this wrong. Andrei Soldatov, just as as others, tells this is NOT a conspiracy theory.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it his opinion / guesswork; read: conspiracy theory. `'Míkka>t 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then why did you delete all recent sourced edits, including even categorization of this article as a "conspiracy theory", in violation of 3RR rule?Biophys (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Grouping of Russian and Chinese brigades

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed here but are there any sources that group these two phenomena and how reliable they are? Alæxis_¿question? 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got exactly same question. Since I see no source I will remove material about China as irrelevant and WP:SYN. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Brigades at the Polish internet and other sourced texts

Excuse me, but what was the reason for deletion of the entire "Brigades at the Polish internet" section and many other sourced texts. If you want to delete perfectly sourced and relevant texts, please first discuss here each such segment separately and wait for reply of others and consensus building. That is how WP works. I see that you have less than 50 edits, so apparently you did not know. Now you know. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are a very experienced WP user since you have filed a checkuser report already [22]. Did you edit previously under a different name?Biophys (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is unrelated to Internet brigades. If you say it is, please provide sources. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not reply at all to the question about Polish internet and other deleted texts.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That was the answer. I am not aware of any source linking removed material with "brigades", are you? Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was massive amount of text deleted and the article moved without discussion and voting ?

Please explain ? --Molobo (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is about "brigades". Removed text is not directly related to the subject of the article. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The removed text is clearly about Russian operational agents manipulating Polish internet. It is directly connected to the article.--Molobo (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Directly connected" is your conclusion. The cited article does not use the term in question. Besides, the phrase "According to claims of anonymous "Polish experts on Russian affairs" means that this is nothing but a piece of rumor. Wikipedia cannot be based on old wives' tales, even printed in newspapers (especially printed in newspapers). While most of the russian sources is also allegations, they stick to basically same context. Mixing rumors from other countries is overgeneralization. Mukadderat (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Web brigades

Several persons in votes for deletion stated that a major objection is the article title which is neologism for English language. Since the well-referenced part is based exclusively on Russian sources and speaks about the alleged Russian phenomenon, it is reasonable to use the existing Russian term "veb-brigady", which direct translation is "Web brigades" and was suggested during the vote for deletion. When the phenomenon will be widely recognized internationally, this article may remain purely Russian specific. At the same time a general, international, article may be written, under the title which will emerge in English language and which will include the summary of the Russan article, per wikipedia:Summary style. Mukadderat (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Many people also voted to keep the article as is, hence there was no consensus to move it either. Please discuss and build consensus on talk before moving the article. Martintg (talk)

Blind revert is not an argument. I explained my reasons. You did not. Mukadderat (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus is reason enough. Martintg (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggested the title web-brigades in the deletion discussion, but I agree that "web brigades" will be more correct english spelling. I agree that arbitrary translation "internet brigades" is original research. While "web" and "internet" are basically synonyms in this context, they are still different words in both russian and english. In the new topic like this it is important to stay away from original research as far as possible. This article is confined to Russian context, and the literally translated Russian term is OK, even if there is no established English term. Laudak (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the term has been literally translated. Are you familiar with Russian well enough to claim that "web brigades" is correct translation, but "Internet brigades" is not? I would certainly insist that although "web brigades" is correct colloquial translation, "Internet brigades" is a much better translation according to norms of good literature, which are more appropriate for an encyclopedia. To claim otherwise one must be a top language expert.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sure it is an english term, internet brigades is not exclusively a Russian phenomenon, Chinese being the most notable example. Perhaps English is not your first language but and the term was originially mentioned in news reports about Chinese government sponsored activities on the internet some years back. Martintg (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Initial report (pretty poor source) was exclusively about Russian "brigades". The report did not say anything about Chinese or any other "brigades". I am not aware of any source calling Chinese activities as internet "brigades" or web brigades. Can you provide any source? If not, how is that material related to the article? Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The term "Internet Brigade" was first used in 2001, in a news article about Dutch police setting up an internet brigade to infiltrate internet newsgroups and other forums for intelligence gathering. Using police teams for influence and opinion shaping is a later Chinese and Russian development. Martintg (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• That was very interesting. Thank you. But says nothing about China. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• China's efforts to influence the internet are well documented, their teams are much larger than "Brigade" size, so are they simply called "Internet Police". This article is about the phenomenon of government agencies infiltrating the Internet, not about some Russian newspaper reports. Martintg (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article is named whatever brigades. It can only be based on sources that mention brigades. Any other approach will be problematic because of OR. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. According to WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." Therefore there is no requirement that the title exactly aligns with the terms used in sources if they are discussing the same phenomenon, only that the title be in common usage and likely to be a search term. Martintg (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, your quote is about a different case, so this is stretched. Secondly, we do not know if the authors of the sources would agree that they are talking about the same thing. I doubt they would. I think I understand your view, but feel this POV is big overgeneralization. Unless there are RS supporting such view, I consider this generalization is OR. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dutch case is a very good find. However both China and Dutch are rather different topics. I created a new article, Internet police, and moved the content there. It is surprising this article was missing. Please expand. Mukadderat (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly distinguish between police and intelligence agencies acting online, and yes, in some countries the difference is more blurried than in the others. I am surprised we had no article on policing online before, though. Are we sure there is no need to merge some content into the Internet police article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Russian teams (including their actions in Polish internet), we are talking about secret political police that operates beyond the law, rather than enforcing the law (as police suppose to do). Hence they do not belong to "internet police". As about "Chinese teams", one should first answer the question if organizations like Gestapo and NKVD were "normal" police organizations. If the answer is "no" (as would many insist), they also do not belong to "internet police".Biophys (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic of the article. It is obvious you are bringing an attention to an interesting phenomenon in internet, and I appreciate and respect that. However it is just as obvious that there are no publications which discuss the phenomenon in the general, international setting and there is no recognized common term for it. `'Míkka>t 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, there was no consensus to rename this article or delete materials about Chinese brigades.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to delete pieces of original research. You failed to provide references that someone called Chinese case "internet brigades" or at least wrote that Chinese and Russian cases are of the same kind. `'Míkka>t 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply about OR and definition of the term below.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with internet police

Police enforces laws - by definition. Please cite any Russian or Chinese laws that are allegedly enforced by these "police" "Internet brigades". There are no such laws. The official internet censorship in China is an entirely different matter.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, internet policing and propaganda in China, described in the piece deleted from this article, are entirely different matter. `'Míkka>t 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the cited article from "Guardian" [23] ? It tells about "the recruitment of a growing army of secret web commentators"

"Reports that at least two other localities have recruited similar teams suggest the strategy is being encouraged by the central government. Few will admit to the practice, but Nanjing officials said the city was hiring 20 online commentators from the ranks of its existing employees."

"There are commentators like this all over the country."

"The government's tactics are too funny. They are actually hiring staff to curse online," said Liu Di.

So, this is exactly about the subject of this article.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Laudak, please stop reintroducing yuour original research. "web brigades" are supported by citations ony for Russia. Please stop intropducing material from other countries. Laudak (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As explained in this article, "The Internet brigades (traditional Chinese: 網特; simplified Chinese: 网特；[citation needed] Russian: Веб-бригады) [1][2] are state-sponsored information warfare teams that conduct psychological operations on-line. Such teams are allegedly affiliated with state propaganda departments, military, or secret police forces.. According to cited sources, such teams exist in Russia and China. In Russia they are called "Internet brigades", in China this work is done by "internet police" (see however my note about operating beyond the law above - this is not a police in normal sense). So, this is the same phenomenon. It is very common that the same phenomenon has different names. For example, one protein can have many different names. But it is still the same protein.Biophys (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sopurces that "web brigades" exist in china. In china it is official "internet police", not some "web brigades". Please don't try introduce neologism in other areas by yourself. "Very common the same phenomenon" is your conclusion, not published elsewhere yet. Laudak (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

They fit exactly the same definition. Well, perhaps the introduction, the definition, and even the title of the article should be reworded...Biophys (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"They fit exactly the same definition." Says who? Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about teams of governmental agents who contribute to internet forums. There are such teams in Russia, China, and they also appeared in the Polish internet, according to the cited sources. I do not see any problem here. For example, Retinylidene proteins are proteins containing retinal, simply by definition. Same thing.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine.

1. Who came up with the definition?
2. How is it related to the article?

Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply in a separate chapter below.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It did not address my questions, especially the first one. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling that you are user Setraspdopaduegedfa? The definition is according to several sources, including those in articles about Russian, Polish and Chinese internet.Biophys (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that "according to" in reality means the definition is Biophys' work. Kulikovsky (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadykhov

Sadykhov cannot be a valid source of information for wikipedia. He is a nonnotable person, and his opinion bears no weight and authority, see wikipedia policy: WP:UNDUE. We cannot post speculations of each and every person: wikipedia would be turned into a repository of rumors and political rants. `'Míkka>t 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That was reported in "The New Times" - a reliable source. The man appears as a witness; such primary sources are admissible per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The "The New Times" link is dead. Anyway, now I am inclined to changed my opinion about Sadykhov. But you must provide more background about how he came to this information. Then it makes more sense. `'Míkka>t 23:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall, a really lame article. Sources are: 1) 1 very unreliable foreign journalists article (that makes for a half of the article) and 2) 1 very unreliable blogger (and another NatsBol member, hola!). That makes an article blaming Russian government for cheating in the internet forums. Is it some new kind of neocon paranoia - or is it a real campaign by some intelligence agencies, like CIA? So - does the CIA version sounds more paranoic than all this article to you? 194.85.148.66 (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

compromise approach

Some time ago I proposed User talk:Biophys#Compromise approach to Biophys. However he was not interested, therefore I implemented it myself. My version basically includes most of deleted content from reliable sources, but my version does not draw any conclusions, i.e., it does not constitute original research. Mukadderat (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The earlier version did no draw any conclusions except claims made in cited sources. What conclusions are you talking about?Biophys (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

O'K, let's move by little steps and do not exclude anything sourced and relevant to the subject.Biophys (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Making a review article is not original research

I think that some people misinterpreted WP:NOR here. If one writes a review article about birds, he can combine source A that explains what the bird is, source B that tells about birds in China, and source C that tells about birds in Russia. That what was done in the earlier version. Writing a review article always includes two things: (a) research of sources, and (b) proper interpretation of sources. A review article does not include original research, being a secondary/tertiary source itself. The interpretation is required because any indirect citation always involves some form of interpretation. To summarize a source content, one needs to understand (interpret) what it tells. Ones again, this article is about governmental teams that allegedly participate in internet forums to promote certain views. This is definition of the subject ("the bird") per sources. Other sources tell that such "birds" were found on the Russian, Polish and Chinese internet forums, again per sources. So, everything is fine.Biophys (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which "birds"? Sparrows? They are called sparrows in russian, polish, and chinese sources, in native languages, and there are dictionaries which confirm that e.g., en:"sparrow"=ru:"vorobey"=pl:"wrobel". Now, please provide me a single source that ru:"veb brigady" equals to something in polish and chinese usage, then we start talking. `'Míkka>t 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not tell "sparrow". I told "birds". That could a very poorly defined category like "polar solvents". It could be "totalitarian systems", no matter that scholars disagree if a certain country was "totalitarian" or not, and the usefulness of word "totalitarian" itself may be disputed. All of that are legitimate subjects. Once again, all these sources tell about about governmental teams that participate in internet forums to promote disinformation and affect political blogs (I provides a more detailed citation from the "Guardian" above). This is the same sparrow. I am not familiar with Chinese, but there is a combination of Chinese words provided by a user, and there is a corresponding article in Chinese WP.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you said "birds", then you have to say "anonymous governmental members of internet forums", because no one uses the word "sparrow" or "web brigades" yet besides Russia. Doing otherwise is promoting a neologism. You don't even know they are "brigades" (teams). A single person can have a hundred of avatars and mess with many forums if it is his full daytime job. While scholars may disagree that some country is "totalitarian", in wikipedia you cannot cal a state totalitarian if nobody called it so in reputable publications. Chinese WP and a Chinese wikipedian are not valid sources for wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is O'K to tell "anonymous governmental members of internet forums" as you suggest, but one should add that these "members" create well organized teams to promote disinformation and intimidate political bloggers - in Russia, Poland and China, according to sources.Biophys (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Web brigades and Moldovan language

Have you noticed the activity of Russian editors on Moldovan language article and similitudes with web brigades? 24.116.9.9 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what connection do you mean? Biophys (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an open proxy anon sock of banned Romanian troll, user:Bonaparte, who is just sick and cannot stop. `'Míkka>t 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Article in Canada Free Press

Please see this publication. Do you think that we should restore the section, or this belongs to Criticism of Wikipedia? Biophys (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to Conspiracy theories related to wikipedia :-). The author of this publication is the author of the conspiracy theory in question. There is no doubt that there are numerous organized groups which try to sway wikipedia texts, but this is no way "criticism of wikipedia". Just as "conspiracy theory" is not "criticism of newspapers". It is just a description of what happens in wikipedia universe. Anyway, in the publication in question a rather nonnotable author writes about his own theory (see Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2007_(June-December)), his own experience with wikipedia, hence it fails the issue of undue weight. Mukadderat (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you see recent "Camera lobbing" case considered by ArbCom? As a matter of fact, that was an organized group of users who was funded by an external organization and tried to change in a certain way wikipedia content. Was not it? This is not someone's imagination. Telling that, I do not insist on anything. If others insist not to include this content anywhere, let's keep it deleted. But it does belong somewhere.Biophys (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are arguing with? That's what I said right above: "no doubt that there are numerous organized groups which try to sway wikipedia" Mukadderat (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also read this Ludwig claims: "...I was surprised to find out that the entire section has been deleted, apparently for lack of reliable evidence! It would appear that this writer was not the only one preparing for the first year anniversary of this event.". This Ludwig tells about you. This article existed for many months. All the sudden, you came and made this deletion of text and nominated the entire article for deletion. Now you tell that his opinion is a "conspiracy theory". Sure it is.Biophys (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Colleague, please. Don't make me think you are paranoid. OK. It says about me. So which web brigade I belong to? Wait! I know how to figure it out... Just look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (3 nomination)... On a serious note, I may explain how I have found this article, but I am starting to doubt in your way of thinking. Mukadderat (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blame me of something I did not tell. I even agreed with you that his opinion is certainly a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, must be may bad english and lack of attention reading. I un derstood your phrasing Now you tell that his opinion is a "conspiracy theory". Sure it is. as irony. Mukadderat (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

This "article" is nothing but a very crude propaganda, so it should be deleted from WIKIPEDIA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.177.169 (talk • contribs)

Not a valid justification. Please read WP policies about deletion of articles.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. This article features no reliable sources at all. No major reliable newspaper had ever wrote anything on it, no official person had ever made a statement he/ she suspects these groups exist. Thus this is just an article featuring unproven accusations that may be offencive to many persons, including many Russian bloggers/ forum users which may be accused of being a paid agents. See example (Polish): [24]. FeelSunny (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Deletion has already been proposed, discussed, and rejected by community consensus. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Or rewriten to the point that will make ot clear that it's based only on weak proofs.--Oleg Str (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does not make statements about the web brigades. It only refers to such published statements and paraphrases them quite carefully in a referring voice. Both allegations and refutations have their place in the article. The article does NOT have to prove the statements as it is not the article's purpose. Attempts to prove or disprove anything in the article in the Wikipedia editorial voice would bend the "no original research" policy. --ilgiz (talk)

Again? Start a proper AfD, at least. What will that be, 3rd? 4th? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This article makes some very heavy claims, and has way too few reliable sources. The main source of this article is the article by Anna Politkosvkaja (a journalist), a Polish newspaper, Tygodnik Powszechny, Russian Center for Extreme Journalism, and blogs. What are almost completely missing are reliable main-stream sources (news or otherwise.) This article is also very lengthy. I think the longer an article is, the more and better sources it should have. My opinion is, that with the current sources, the article should be much, much smaller. The article also uses some sources incorrectly ("not in the reference given".) Offliner (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some heavy changes, removing, for example, the lengthy descriptions of the "characteristics" of Web brigades and their tactics, which were taken from just one source (Politkovskaya's article.) This article shouldn't be just a lengthy description of the claims in Politkovskaya's article. I think Politkosvkaya's point is already made clear enough in this article even without those two lengthy passages.

I also found the article's usage of subchapter headings wrong. For example, the subchapter heading "LiveJournal fighters" seemed to me to suggest that the existence of such a group is a fact, when in reality the content of the whole subchapter had just one source: member of National Bolshevik Party Roman Sadykhov, and the chapter actually contained his claims. Also, the subchapter titled "Russian state security teams" was actually about claims made by Andrei Soldatov and the subchapter "Kremlin's Agents of Influence" contained only claims by Paul Goble. I changed the titles of those subchapters to correspond with their content.

I still think this article is desperately missing references to reliable main-stream sources. If someone has such sources, please add references to them in this article. Presently the content of the whole article relies way too much on opinions by individual journalists. Offliner (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read any sources at all? This article has nothing to do with Politkovskaya. All sources satisfy WP:Verifiability. If you think they do not, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard. Sorry, but removal of sourced views as you did is against WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you reverted all my edits. Let me answer your critisism: I basicly have concerns about the reliability of your sources (not verifiability) in respect of the length of this article. Like I said, the longer the article, the more sources it should have. I don't think I removed critical sourced content: I removed two chapters, which were lengthy descriptions of the Web brigades and their tactics, which were completely based on just one source (Politkovskaya's article.) I don't think it's useful to quote all that material here, instead, the reader should consult Politkosvkaya's original article for those detailed descriptions. So I did not (I think) remove important sourced material from the article - I just shortened it and cleaned it up. If you think I removed some important bit of information, then please point out what that information was and restore it instead of reverting my edits completely.

Now for the reliability part. Most of this article is (like I said) based on Politkovskaya's article (or on other writings which refer to it.) Now, how can we be sure Politkosvkaya and her article are reliable sources? Her article is about her (and the other writers') opinions, it doesn't have any concrete evidence behind its claims. All we have is the writer's telling us that according to their perceptions the web brigades do exist. If we were reviewing her article, there would probably be no way for us to falsify its claims (since its based on the writers opinions and not on concrete evidence). Other sources include Russian Center for Extreme Journalism (a reliable source? can we be certain?), RIO-Center (a reliable source? can we be certain?), Andrei Soldatov (reliable? why?) and Roman Sadykhov (reliable? why?) What I'm basicly trying to say is that I'm not convinced at all of the reliability of those 5 sources. Since I'm not convinced, I don't think they should be given as much room as they are given. This is why I shortened the article.

Also, please note that my edits weren't just about shortening (which is what you seem to be against): I also made other modifications. For example, the sub-chapter headings which I think are misleading (see my above text.) Another example is this (it is from the introduction:) "There has been reports that Russian Internet brigades have extended operations to websites of foreign countries." The source given is the article by Tygodnik Powszechny. The article describes a case of an anti-Ukrainian article which was published on a Russian website, and allegedly falsely used Tygodnik Powszechny (a polish newspaper) as it source. Tygodnik Powszechny goes on to say that the anti-Ukrainian article was uploaded to the website by Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. At the end of the article it claims: "The same source claims that at least a dozen of active Russian agents work in Poland, also investigating Polish internet." But what was the sentence used on our Wikipage? It was "There has been reports that Russian Internet brigades have extended operations to websites of foreign countries." But the source doesn't claim this. It claims the operations have been extended to Poland. The sentence used on our page is misleading (at least when this source is used), since it suggests the Web brigades have extended operations to foreign countrie(s) (notice the plural) when the source is talking only about Poland (one country.)

We should also remember, that this is, after all, a conspiracy issue, and we therefore need to be extra careful in using as many reliable sources as possible. Also, as always with conspiracies, they are very hard to disprove, and therefore it is hard to find contra-arguments to balance this article.

My main complain with this page is (like I said) its length, or more precicely, its length-to-number-of-reliable-sources-ratio.

Since you reverted all my edits, I expect you to answer every point I've made in this writing.

Finally, does anyone else understand my concerns with this article and what I'm trying to express? Offliner (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning behind the removal of content, and support your edit 150%. The wholesale revert that was performed by Biophys is not acceptable, particularly given that the issues you raised are absolutely valid and conform with WP policy. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Offliner. We need "verifiabilty, not truth" per WP rules. All sources here satisfy WP:Verifiability criteria. You did not explain why they did not. If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RS. There are no any rules about "ratio" you are talking about. You tell: "The main source of this article is the article by Anna Politkosvkaja (a journalist), a Polish newspaper, Tygodnik Powszechny, Russian Center for Extreme Journalism, and blogs.". No, none of that is blog. BTW, none of sorces is "the article by Anna Politkosvkaja" as you tellBiophys (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. My concern wasn't about "truth". Please read my text above to see what my concerns are (the include length of the article and reliability of sources). You didn't address any of them. And it looks like I confused Polyanskaya and Politkosvkaya, so what I meant was "the article by Anna Polyanskaya et al."

Please note that my edits consisted of multiple different changes, and you discarded all of categorically with minimal explanation. Please address all my points I've made above. Offliner (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the "Behavior" and "Tactics" subchapters

I removed the Behavior and Tactics subchapters because they were lengthy citations of details of just one source. Those details don't add anything essential to this article. If the reader is interested in the details of Polyanskaya et al's claims, he should consult their original article. Offliner (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. "Those details don't add anything essential to this article" is not right. Those details are the essence of this article. For example, in the article Sobolev inequality you presented main equations relevant to the case, even though very few WP readers can understand those equations (unlike the "details" by Polyanskaya). One could tell: "why present the equations? One can find them in a textbook." But these equations are fine because they explain the subject. Same thing is here. It is generally not helpful to delete sourced content simply claiming "this is unimportant".Biophys (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You could try to sum up the most important bits from those chapters in a few sentences.Offliner (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys' reverts

You have (again) reverted all changes made to the page by three different people. This is not acceptable. At the moment, you are effectively preventing anyone to make changes to the page. Instead of reverting everything, try to come up with a compromise solution. And please address ALL the points I have made above. People have made over 20 different edits, you categorically reverted all of them. Now you must argument why, and address each of those edits individually. Offliner (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not a problem. I can easily create a compromise version.Biophys (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished new version.Biophys (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to summarize the two chapters I mentioned. BTW, you still haven't addressed many of my points at all. I have now tagged some of those points in the text, and I expect you to address all of them, since you have reverted all attempts by many people to fix them. Offliner (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You simply deleted everything you do not like, although everything is relevant and sourced.Biophys (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I have attempted to provide a summary of the removed chapters. If you think my summary omits some important information, please write your own summary to demonstrate what the most important parts of those chapters are. Those two chapters are too detailed and can very well be summarised. Please read [25]. And your 100% revers of multiple different edits with no comments / argumentation at all is completely unacceptable. Offliner (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was already a summary, the shortest possible summary represented by bullets. To compromise with you, I already removed some of the points. Other remaining points should stay. We do not give "undue weight" to one of the alternative views but merely explain one of the views. If you want to balance, please add more material on Usupovsky.Biophys (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not enough. Those two chapters are go into very small details and are taken completely from just one source. You are giving undue weight to the views of that source. Also, you still haven't told us why you reverted all the other edits which don't concern with those two chapters. Offliner (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight, reverts, etc.

Many edits by different people are getting 100% reverted by one person with minimal argumentation. Undue weight is given to just one source (behavior and tactics chapters)? Subchapter headings demonstrate POV? Sources do not support all wordings / statements? Reverts are prohibiting people from correcting errors in this article. Offliner (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply.

1. All statements are supported by sources. If something is not supported, please explain what is it.
2. There is no requirement for an article to be equally supported by different sources (say 50% from source A and 50% from source B). One source may include significantly more information on a subject than another. Then 9:1 proportion in the text does not mean the "undue weight". "Undue weight" is about opposite views. Which opposite views are you talking about?Biophys (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To 1: Take a look at all the comments and edits that I and other people have made. In my last edit, I marked some of those places where the sources don't support the said things. I asked you to comment on them, you didn't reply. Instead you reverted all my edits. For example, take a look at the edits made by 91.149.190.179. Please address the concerns he has made in his edits: "please provide evidence for FIRST", "Please produce citation for psy ops methods of warfare - this demands exceptional sources", "Please produce citation for SECRET POLICE."

Russian FSB mentioned in sources is typical secret police.Biophys (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely annoying that I have to personally point you out those things. I have also asked you to address many other points on this page, but you still haven't. I find it very frustrating that you are reverting everything with minimal explanation, and are not answering my concerns, although I have repeatedly asked you to do so. Offliner (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply. These are WEB Brigades! You see, they tirelessly attack a single defender of truth! --Javalenok (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Evident mistakes and original research in the article

1. There are no sources which confirm that web brigades are used by SECRET POLICE. 2. There are no sources confirming that web brigades were first discovered by Anna Polyanskaya 3. There are no sources confirming that web brigades are using PSYOPS methods. I would stay silent that there are no even sources confirming that web brigades are using cyberstalking and cyberbullying, but I leave it on the consience of the authors.

4. There are on-time accounts like Putinm who have made only two edits and have inserted in this article - false information. This edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_brigades&diff=235703886&oldid=235421959 Putinm had written that web brigades were discovered by Politkovskaya. And some authors like Biophys were restoring this false information repeatedly by reverting to this false information version. 5. Clearly, a number of authors pursue in this article just the goal of Russia humiliation. For example, the last paragraph claim that Russian web brigades in Poland instigate antisemitism demands outstanding sources, because it is exceptional claim. And the source for this is just anonymous Polish "experts", e.g. anonyms. So where is WP is buried? Or it doesn't apply to Russian topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.190.179 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed words about secret police and psyops. Thank you for noticing this mistake about Polyanskaya. I fixed it also in one of previous edits.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims by Soldatov

Most of the claims ascribed to Soldatov were made in more gentle form. Plain text is version by Biophys, bold text is my version, italic is original Russian text:

• There are countries with greater or less control over the Internet; but there is control over the Internet in Russia;

Russian state security teams actively disrupt work of certain political blogs;

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: ...Сразу хочу спросить экспертов в студии – контроль за интернетом, прежде всего, за контентом – он есть?...

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Есть страны, в которых он больше, есть страны, в которых он меньше, но у нас все равно есть.

• During the US invasion of Iraq, a group of people calling themselves GRU officers published allegedly internal GRU information on American losses in Iraq — this information was shown on the background of Anti-american hysteria and was well consumed. Later it turned out this information was not credible, but this effectively didn't change the result;

Technology One of the teams, who called themselves GRU officers, was actively involved in a disinformation campaign prior to US invasion of Iraq;

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Тогда я хочу спрсоить А.Солдатова - Андрей, много ходит разговоров о том, что существуют так называемые "веб-бригады"...

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Во-первых, касается это ен только формуров. Есть более определенные вещи – например, если вспомните. Такая технология использовалась во время войны в Ираке – буквально за два месяца до взятия Багдада появился сайт, посвященный иракской войне, где группа людей, которые назывались сотрудниками ГРУ, опубликовали то, что они называли "сводками руководителя ГРУ", где расписывалось, как американцы проигрывают войну. Там указывались какие-то данные - вот еще 5 танков подбили, все это на фоне антиамериканской истерии, все это очень хорошо потреблялось. И, в принципе, этот сайт закончил существование только тогда, когда американцы уже вошли в Багдад, и окзаалось, что все эти подбитые танки то ли были, то ли нет - вобещм, результат не изменило.

• After 2005 Nalchik raid Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement that Kavkaz Center "is a very bad resource", and after two days two teams calling themselves hackers appeared, to arrange hacker attacks against Kavkaz Center.
• Soldatov doesn't think web brigades are fiction. He had related issues with his own site, especially during such events like Moscow theater hostage crisis;

The teams are also involved in hacker attacks, and they have probably attacked his own web site during the Moscow theater hostage crisis;

Второй момент тоже очень любопытный - если вспомните события в Нальчике, то буквально там была очень интересная цепь событий, когда буквально на следующий день вышло заявление МИД о том, что сайт "Кавказ-центр" это очень плохой ресурс, а через два дня появилось две команды, котоыре обозвали себя хакерами, две команды людей, которые формально независимы от государства – такое объединение молодежи, правда, очень скоординированное - которые стали заниматсья тем, что стали организовывать хакерские атаки на "Кавказ-Центр". То есть, активность может быть любая. Это может касатсья не только контента, но вот, например, "забанить" "Кавказ-Центр".

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Но есть веб-бригады, или это придумка испуганных интернет-пользователей?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Я не думаю, что это придумка. Потому что я по собственному сайту могу судить - у меня происходили такие моменты. Особенно, когда происходят такие события, как "Норд-Ост", например.

• One of structures having related business with the Internet is signals intelligence, which is currently a part of the FSB and has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department;
• There is an related agency in Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs with competent people who can do such things.

Some of the "web brigades" are coordinated by the Russian signals intelligence, which is currently a part of the FSB and has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department;

There are also such teams from the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Где и кто этим занимается?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Я думаю, что сложно четко сказать, при каких управлениях точно эти люди существуют – там разные структуры называют, называют Центр информационной безопасности, еще там есть некие моменты.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Это какие федеральные структуры?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Понимаете, у нас были две структуры, которые занимаются интернетом - ФАПСИ и ФСБ. Потом, когда ФАПСИ не стало, то главная такая структура, о которой все забыли, это так называемый "Третий главк", назывался он Главное управление радиоэлектронной разведки на средствах связи.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Бывшее 16-е управление КГБ.

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Да, страшная структура. Ну, как страшная - такая эффективная структура, она занималась лурдесом, Камранью, в том числе, они занималсь разведкой в интернет. Все это влилось в состав ФСБ, так что сейчас фактически можно сказатЬ, что есть одна структура, которая этим занимается. Плюс еще МВД, в котором есть соответствующее управление, где тоже сидят люди довольно компетентыне, которые умеют этим заниматься.

I do not like the situation in which statements openly made by a person are translated into the Wikipedia with certain deviations to meet certain interests. This is improper position, violating Wikipedia policies. Besides, it takes forces of Wikipedians to return situation to NPOV version, instead of concentrating on further development.

ellol (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Danger!

I'd like to write the word "Danger!" in capital letters over this article. Why?

1. This page is about a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are infamous for being extremely hard to disprove. No wonder that the "criticism" section is so small.
2. Over 50% of its content is based on just ONE SINGLE SOURCE (Polyanskaya's article.)
3. All pro-arguments are written by just ONE SINGLE PERSON, User:Biophys, who also very aggressively defends the page against edits by other users.

The article has already received considerable attention outside Wikipedia. Many people seem to think: "I read about it on Wikipedia, so it's got to be true!" Do you now understand why I am so concerned?

In my opinion, this article should definitely be integrated to some other article, instead of it being independent. Why? The existence of "Web brigades" (whatever they _exactly_ mean) has not been proven. This article is not, and cannot be, about them. Basically, this is an article about Polyanskaya et al.'s claims. Therefore, (and especially because of the three points above I mentioned), it does not deserve its own page.

If this page, for someone reason, just has to exist, then let's at least be _very_ careful about it and point out clearly that it is an unproven conspiracy theory, and that the article is mostly based on just one single source. How do we do this? Make it more balanced by removing undue weight given to Polyanskaya et al. How? Since this is a conspiracy theory it is hard to disprove, and therefore, it is hard to find material for the "critisism" section. So making it more balanced by just expanding the "contra" -section is not possible. The only other solution is to make the article _much_ shorter. At least remove the "views" and "tactics" chapters, since all they do is cut & paste material from Polyanskaya's article.

But like I said, the best solution would be to integrate this article to some other article, giving it its own subchapter there. Offliner (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reworking opening part of the article, in the line of your reasoning. I'm sure you are able to provide a neutral point of view.

I did some work adding new stuff to the article. But I do not want to rework the opening part myself, for the part of my origin and my political stance. As a Russian citizen and active forum participant I consider web brigades pure fiction. Things that do not exist, do not -- other way it would be a question of well being of my central nervous system. (You can't refer to me, you know.)

The article was twice nominated for AfD. As far as I remember, the first AfD resulted in deletion of the article. Then the article was recreated and withstood the second AfD.

A Russian Wiki entry for web brigades exist. You can view it through Google Translate -- or if you are interested in anything specific, I or any Russophonic Wikipedian can do a translation. Good luck.

ellol (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The russian wiki entry sucks: it is careless with names and references, and with text, too. I guess, russian wikipedians don't think this topic deserves or attracts attention. Laudak (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The term is rarely used in Russian sources. The only Russian publications featuring the topic are those cited in the article. When used in different places, usually the term may be met in great variety of forms, and mostly quoted as fascinating myth.

Rare or specific use of the term needs to be reflected.

The context of the whole story is the existence of groups vith different views in the Russian internet (Russian society). ellol (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Laudak, let's start step-by-step discussion of the opening to the article. Believe me, it's not easy for me either. But I'm ready for a cautious careful dialogue.

One thing, I'm pretty much sure that anonymous publication shouldn't be mentioned in the beginning part of the article. But it can be referred to in the detailed description.

Other thing. Let's evade forms in the opening part, assuming existence of web brigades. It's a theory, unproved. In the opening part, we shouldn't say differently. ellol (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

First of all, your phrasing "in view of some Russian liberal intellectuals " is your opinion. My version "the term used in Russian media" is more neutral: this term you see online used by persons you will never guess whether they are intellectuals even more liberal. Quite a few of them are jokers or morons. However now I see a grammatical error in my text: it should be "a term used in Russian media" (i.e., one of several).

Second, the anon Anastasya's publication was the earliest traceable one and which caused quite a stir, and I strongly suspect that Anastasya is Polyanskaya. What is more, you are confusing refs: Russian Center for Extreme Journalism has nothing to do with them. The cited "Extr Journ" article only reviews these early pubs, and authors of these pubs have no affiliation with "Extr Journ" (if I am mistaken, please provide proof), and "Oko za oko" is by no means an early publication and it is mostly a summarizer of other noisy publications with little original thought (or fantasies :-). Laudak (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1a) Anna Polyanskaya and Andrey Krivov may be described as liberals, as well as Grigory Svirsky, due to their background. If this doesn't count, I'm out of arguments. Of course, 'intellectuals' isn't equal to original Russian 'intelligentsia', as every well educated person in Soviet times could be ascribed to the latter. Intellectual is no exact translation... Perhaps it's a wrong word here. 1b) I would be more cautios with the term "used" -- because honestly it is quite rarely mentioned. Perhaps "proposed" or "introduced" may be more adequate. . So in my view it could be "Web brigades is a term proposed in Russian media for ... . The term is mostly used by people with liberal views."

I propose you to make the next step, i.e. make your version... I count on your taste.

2) Thank you for correcting my mistake. In fact, speaking strictly, using anonymous sources (Anastasiya's article) isn't anything accepted in Wikipedia. Not that I dislike the author or the content -- but it's the policy we should align to. May be it may be referred to (in interests of history) in the section describing Polyanskaya's article.

Interesting enough. Polyanskaya's article was republished by "Independent association of customers" in 2008, [26] they didn't mention the original authors, and used a term "Team G" (Команда Г) instead of "web brigades". That publication created another wave of response. May be mentioned this (Russian bloggers comments who commented this stuff on request of the New York Times) and this (article in a Russian computer magazine).

ellol (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was intrigued with the topic and googled for the term (in Russian). I have an impression that the majority hits from reputable sources are reposts of variants and pieces of the basically same text. I am strongly inclined to think that we have an undue weight for a single author, although the current article is much cleaner from overgeneralizations seen 1-2 months ago. Timurite (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish section

Dear Biophys.

I refer to your restoration of Polish section in Web Brigades article. I would like to remind you of the following Wikipedia policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The source which supports claims you have restored is anonym. Could you prove us that this is an exceptional quality source? I specifically pay your attention to the following Wikipedia policy: "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;"

Another issue is that your source should be verifiable. How could you verify a claim by the anonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.190.179 (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am skeptical about this article, I don't exactly understand your concern. The piece in question was published in a reputable Polish newspaper, by its editorial team, who worked to clean their newspaper from aggressive smear thrown on it. Timurite (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Let it me to explain

<Political speech removed>, User notified. `'Míkka>t 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am too stupid to undrstand how can one avoid political aspects as long as a political topic is conserned. I have addressed the social context, which explains the relationship of the Russian liberal community with the rest of the population, which explains the conspiracy emergency. If this is not needed, I can easily say that the article propagates some ideas. Indeed, any info source including Wiki is a propaganda afterall. --Javalenok (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for an interesting post, Yavalenok. Indeed (I feel) the voice of communists is being silenced in Russia. Imho one can't build a normal country by simply rejecting ideas of the past. But I do not judge any side -- "The truth of war is washed away by blood". How (in my opinion) you could participate with this article. 1) If there's any commentary by some Communist activist about "web brigades" -- it would fit greately. The voice of the largest opposition party is important, imho. 2) You say you are a member of self-organized brigade, calling itself "FSB brigade". If there's any publication in the press covering your activity -- it would fit greately. Or perhaps you can write a statement about bloody gebnya resource, or the music band "Корейские LЁDчики"? 3) You are welcome. ellol (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why (and which?) aggression must be apologised by blood and what this makes to the topic. Also, despite I'm sure that peace and sustanable development is only possible in communist society; that is, this idea of the past is hopefully our future, I did my explanation more from the conservative perspective rather than from communist because the opposition to liberal democracy is much broader. What is really rediculous about liberal democrats is that they do not accept opposite opinion especially when it is expressed by the majority.

I can translate bloody gebnya manifest but it will be qualified as "propaganda" again, right? Basicaly, they claim the same thing: they are a community of readers, which was created to resist anti-Russian propaganda by exposing the lies of Nazi, Liberal and corrupted offisials in the invited news and papers and by revealing the true motives of their customers, the world elites in their struggle for permissiveness. The lack of corruptibility and journalist expertise is compensated by sincerity and common sense. But I do not think that wiki is the place to collect the translations of websites. Therefore, I do not know how to contribute especially because my generalizations on the subject are not allowed even in this discussion! --Javalenok (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea, may be it's worth an effort to create a section "social background", quoting there 1 quote on social issues made by a liberal [political] activist, 1 by communist one, and 1 by the one representing United Russia country. If properly done, could be interesting. ellol (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The article is mostly about government manipulation of the internet Web brigades is a really vague naming of the article. Government manipulation of the internet would be a far better title. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to move. This article covers only one and very specific issue. We have a lot of articles about internet censorship by governments, about persecution of cyber-dissidents and related human rights issues. This maybe also information warfare, organized hacker attacks, etc. The article you suggested can be created, but it would cover a much wider set of subjects. Please also see a whole bunch of related issues in Category:Internet governance. Biophys (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

However one can try to create article Government manipulation of the internet just to look what subjects will go there, regardless to this article Why not? This is an enormous subject.Biophys (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Biophys. Knepflerle (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As this article only covers one and very specific issue, that being alleged Russian web brigades, mentions of Chinese, Dutch, etc subjects have been removed from the article again. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out other similar developments are reasonably relevant. `'Míkka>t 21:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose to the move. Agreed with biophys: there are many ways of manipulating internet, all may reasonably treated in separate articles. However an "umbrella" article would make sense if one can find reliable sources which specifically discuss various types of governmental interference in the internet. `'Míkka>t 22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - new title is not appropriate for an article about a particular conspiracy (theory?). Authors can create the new article with appropriate content if desired with no move. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Russian conspiracy theory

This article is about the Russian conspiracy, not about Chinese internet police, nor Dutch cybercrime teams (a lot of countries have these btw), nor about Outer Mongolian teams which mean nothing about this. The placement of these on this article has only been done to give the conspiracy theory more weight, and has been deleted. A link in the see also section to Internet police is suffice. Additionally, the see also section has been reduced as it is nothing more than a random selection of links to other WP articles, which have no connection to this article, e.g. Jewish Internet Hacking Team or whatever it is they call themselves has nothing in that article which gives people further understanding of this topic. Numerous editors have provided numerous problems with this article above, but these have been rejected outright by the owner of this article. This article needs to be reflect the fact that it is a conspiracy theory promoted by a single author, and not have arbitrary information which is not connected with the subject in any way. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I am concerned that this article is trying to link things which don't necessarily have anything to do with each other, and that linking them constitutes original research. Offliner (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Russophonic members of Digital Outreach Team?

As Russian bloggers report, American Digital Outreach Team considers accepting some Russian speaking members as a means of "war of ideas" on Russian language forums and blogs. [27]

Sources include U.S. Government:

UNDER SECRETARY GLASSMAN: Sure. The digital outreach team was a program that was started by my predecessor, Karen Hughes, and we’ve expanded it. But it’s a great program. And we have a small number – we’d like to have a larger number – of people who go onto the internet, into chat rooms, onto popular websites, onto blogs in some cases, and talk about American policy, correct mistakes that are being made, and refer people back to factual documents. They identify themselves as working for the State Department. They do this in Arabic, in Farsi and in Urdu, and we’re considering a few Russian language members of the digital outreach team. So it’s – I think it works very well. That’s one of the things we do. [28]

And Russian language sources. [29] [30]

ellol (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How does this relate to the main article's definition of web brigades who "promote disinformation and prevent free discussions of undesirable subjects"? --ilgiz (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Desinformation in view of liberals may be any anti-liberal information; it means just the agenda understood by this social group as hostile.

However, this is an official statement. Now it's not about gossip, the question is where and when will U.S. employees of the State Department start spreading U.S. ideas, views, propaganda, on Russian blogs and forums.

It's not some bloggre's insanity. But reality, stated by the U.S. official.

It's exactly the "active measures" Biophys was so willing to talk about, but used by the government of the U.S.

ellol (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such question. Quote: They identify themselves as working for the State Department. They do not hide their identity. An absolutely different thing. Colchicum (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They say they do. But do they? ellol (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

With the stuff they do domestically and abroad, do you think they will play all-out-of-white knights? I'm genuinely wondering. ellol (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum and such discussions don't belong here. WP:V, WP:R, WP:NOR, WP:NOTAFORUM, you know. Colchicum (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Americans are smart enough not to pay for some anonymous bullshit. Colchicum (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They pay for the result. If the result is better achieved with anonymous actions -- I think they won't halt their program for dislike of anonymousity.

As for the sources, I believe there will be a plenty of, soon. ellol (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You refer to a statement but then make conjectures about it. These conjectures should be supported by relevant sources.--ilgiz (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

News on the American propagandists. The school of bloggers to operate in Russian media space is opened [31] by Glasnost Defense Foundation and American Center for Journalism Education. [32]. ellol (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

News on the front of People-Who-Have-Life-Propagandists. Now, they have opened a university course to brainwash nerds into becoming like them. Panic! Panic! Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)