Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 10 May 2009

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Internet Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Russia Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A comment

• An example of discussion at the Internet presumably involving members of a "web brigade". They react to a statement by Andrei Piontkovsky. There is nothing like that in English language blogs. However one need to know Russian to understand their slander. After reading all that, no sane person would participate in the blog.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move

I think this article resembles a lot an earlier version of Web brigades. Some of the text here is almost identical. Also, this article suffers from the same problems that plaqued Web brigades before it was improved by many different users. Starting from the name of the article: it should be "ALLEGED Internet operations by Russian secret police", since the existence of such operations is disputed. Creating an article with the current name could be seen as an attempt to give credibility to the existence of such operations. If I created an article called "Organization of the September 11 attacks by the Bush adminstration", that title would never be accepted by other editors. Offliner (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. No, some of these materials are widely accepted and others are a matter of fact (for example, persecution of "cyber-dissidents). Some of them are alleged, and that can be mentioned in the article, as usual.Biophys (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that creation of a new article does not require a preliminary consensus, but renaming does require the consensus. This should be debated here, at this article talk page, not somewhere else.Biophys (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to move this article, please debate it here, wait for consensus and finally ask at "suggested moves" noticeboard. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow

"he often sent his servicemen to branches of New York Public Library where they got access to the Internet without anyone knowing their identity. They placed propaganda and disinformation to various web sites and sent it in e-mails to US broadcasters"

Biophys, don't you understand yourself what bitter idiotism is this? Please, don't discredit your, no doubts, good views. ellol (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely what source tells. What's the problem?Biophys (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem. If it's sourced, it can be published. But it's sheer idiotism! And it's clear for everyone who has a sense of reality. ellol (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs more research. He said some publications on Chechnya were fabricated and placed in the internet, and I have indeed seen a strange source that looks "scholar" but gives numbers that contradict each other; some of them are taken from a letter by Kobulov to Beria (without actually referring to the letter).Biophys (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet operations by Russian secret police → Allegations of internet operations by Russian secret police — There is no evidence that there are Russian secret police operating on the internet in Russia as described by the article. As such, it is basically a conspiracy theory. WP:REDFLAG states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and the ramblings of a few individuals are not extraordinary sources. — Russavia 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support. I agree with Russavia. See my comments above. Offliner (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. A lot of statements in this article are a matter of fact or have never been disputed. The statments/information by Tretiakov and Soldatov were never disputed. The use of SORM is a matter of fact. The indentification and persecution of cyber-dissidents (now deleted for no reason) is a matter of fact, and so on.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are taliking about the article Cyber-dissident is was not deleted just mistyped. --76.71.212.68 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But note that you don't discuss SORM, something that's really worth discussing. Despite there are lots of information published on it in Russia's professional magazines. ellol (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support The article is too much noise out of thin air. ellol (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:WEASEL in the lead is bad enough, why escalate the weaseling to the title? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it is POV. --Russavia 05:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - there will always be someone to deny some claim, but that doesn't mean we need to give them UNDUE consideration, particularly in the titles we select. - Biruitorul 19:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Some Russian nutcase dribbles some rubbish about using a public library, but gives not a single detail of what websites. This is the type of "claim" made in the article, and as such there is zero evidence that there are internet operations by Russian secret police as written in the article. They are ALL allegations. --Russavia 21:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, why not go directly to AfD? - Biruitorul 23:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support since there seems to be no open archives ore whistle blowers (looking at what happened to Alexander Litvinenko it is not likely to think those will come out soon though). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested merger

If you want to merge this article with Web brigades please explain your position, debate and vote. Please stop unilateral deletions of the entire article. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Two separate subjects as I noted in Russavia's AfD nomination. One is about official action (this), one is not (web brigades) regardless of "official" assistance or not. PetersV       TALK 03:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Move

On the afd most people agree that the name is POV as not all the alleged operations were supposedly work of the police. I have also added alleged as for many operations the direct involvement of the government is a matter of controversy. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• The move was never officially debated. There are many different opinions. Let's debate and vote.

Oppose. Biophys (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support as per Alex. Also notice that Biophys in expecting people to engage in a debating society with him on the talk page, he has then gone and done this edit in order to prevent it being moved from this title. I think an explanation on that is warranted Biophys. --Russavia 05:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose move. No better title has been proposed on the talkpage yet. Then again, I opposed it above already, didn't I? Oh, and WP:WEASEL, too. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose move. Well documented incidents, if editors feel "alleged" is required for specific incidents as being "controversial", well then, that's already taken care of. PetersV       TALK 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. There's no proof of any "internet operations" - they are just allegations. Offliner (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support the move. No evidence. It's silly and idiotic. If you want to discuss FSB activities in the Internet, you should have started with technical specifications and legal position of the SORM. Rather than that there are tales by the former FSB people now living abroad, who might have simply invented the story to get the political asilym. The article is absolutely inbearable in view of human sanity. ellol (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you support moving the article on Chupacabra to Allegations of Chupacabra sightings? (Background: there's no credible evidene of Chupacabra's existence.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, you've pointed it out correctly. There's no evidence of Chupacabra's existence. If you initiate the discussion on the move, and care to inform me, I'll support the move. ellol (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not clear what name is actually being proposed here. Martintg (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is still being discussed

Could we show the courtesy of not moving until the discussion is done? PetersV       TALK 22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed section of so-called cyber-dissidents

I have removed this section, as it has nothing to do with internet operations by Russian secret police. It's inclusion in the article is improper synthesis. --Russavia 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

These people's activities on the Internet were being monitored, no? I just see a two pronged approach on the part of officials: put out your version of information, prevent versions you disagree with. That is hardly "synthesis," that is simply and properly describing good propaganda information management. PetersV       TALK 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Move by copy and paste

There was no consensus to move this page. But User:ellol still moved it by copy and paste. Acting in this manner is against WP:Consensus. Please do not do it again. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Biophys, you made the edit I mentioned above BEFORE ellol did what he did. It doesn't explain why you edit a page, without adding or removing anything, and it looks to me that you did it in order to prevent a page move, and I can say that this is NOT the first time you have done that. And yes, ellol don't do copy and paste moves, as they don't comply with GFDL otherwise it seems. --Russavia 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay on the subject. Yes, ellol moved this article by copy and paste from another article as obvious from the diff provided by me.Biophys (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not avoid the question that was asked of you which also have a diff provided. Why did you edit the other article, thereby preventing it to be moved? --Russavia 02:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One should debate the move prior to making it. Any technical matters can be easily resolved by an uninvolved administrator, and I believe that Alex was involved.Biophys (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer to the question raised. Why did you, Biophys, make an unnecessary edit to the redirect page? (Igny (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Please note that Alex moved this article to Alleged internet operations by Russian government, not the title he suggested during deletion discussion (Internet operations by Russian government).Biophys (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just answer the question, Biophys. People are losing their good faith in your because of your dishonest editing tactics, and the least you can do is answer the question and explain your actions. Offliner (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I am not going to discuss anyone's behavior with you any more. Not on my talk page, and not at article talk pages. There are other forums for that.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will drop this matter as insignificant for now. However, consider yourself warned, Biophys. If you ever repeat this tactic in future, I will personally go over all of your edits to compile all the cases of such unwarranted edits of the redirect pages and will bring it up at appropriate notice board where you would have to explain these edits. (Igny (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

On an unrelated issue. Was it appropriate for some anon to close the discussion/poll just 6 days after it started? (Igny (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Move against consensus

Contrary to lack of consensus (see above), this article was moved. This will be reverted.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced and relevant texts

What undue weight and why are you talking about? Please explain. Actually, you just reverted all my edits: .Biophys (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot base 50% of this article on Polyanskaya's claims. Also, your edits messed up the attributions as I explained in my edit summary. Offliner (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you removed a lot of materials (see the diff), not only materials from Polynaskaya article. Second, she and others made an important publication on this subject: this article describes Russian internet teams in a much greater detail than any other publications. Hence, more text from there. You can add alternative views if you do not like it, and in fact such views are currently present in the article.Biophys (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And you call this improvement of the article? Please explain what's the problem. This is all relevant and sourced.Biophys (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop the reverts and explain what's the problem?Biophys (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit summaries, I have explained my edits there. What part of them do you not understand? Offliner (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted five large segments of sourced text. You must justify why. To start from something, let's consider these two segments. Why did you delete them? Biophys (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agents in wikipedia

A number of publications suggested that intelligence agents may have infiltrated Misplaced Pages to remove undesirable information and insert disinformation . According to publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, anonymous editors have always "corrected" and continue "correcting" articles of Russian Misplaced Pages in the interests of special services, although "this is nothing special since everyone knows about the special place of the secret services in the structure of Russian state"

The publication in Computerra tells about possible activity of Russian agents in wikipedia (mostly Russian Misplaced Pages). Please stop removing this.Biophys (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

The alleged FSB activities on the Internet have been described in the short story "Anastasya" by Russian writer Grigory Svirsky, who was interested in the moral aspects of their work. He wrote:

"It seems that offending, betraying, or even "murdering" people in the virtual space is easy. This is like killing an enemy in a video game: one does not see a disfigured body or the eyes of the person who is dying right in front of you. However, the human soul lives by its own basic laws that force it to pay the price for the virtual crime in his real life".

1. Misplaced Pages and the Intelligence Services, by Ludwig De Braeckeleer, OhmyNews, 2007-07-26.
2. CIA, FBI computers used for Misplaced Pages edits by Reuters
3. Wal-Mart, CIA, ExxonMobil Changed Misplaced Pages Entries, by Rhys Blakely, The Times, August 16, 2007
4. Misplaced Pages 'shows CIA page edits' By Jonathan Fildes, BBC News
5. See Who's Editing Misplaced Pages - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign, by Wired
6. CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Misplaced Pages entries By Paul Willis
7. Is there only one truth? by Kivy Bird, Computerra, 26 November 2008
8. " Grigory Svirsky Anastasya. A story on-line (Full text in Russian)
9. Template:Ru icon Eye for an eye

Russian agents in Polish web sites

According to claims of unnamed "Polish experts on Russian affairs", reported by the Polish newspaper Tygodnik Powszechny in 2005, at least a dozen active Russian agents work in Poland, also investigating the Polish Internet. The source also claims that the agents scrutinize Polish websites (like those supporting Belarusian opposition), and also perform such actions, as—for instance—contributing to Internet forums on large portals (like Gazeta.pl, Onet.pl, WP.pl). Labeled as Polish Internet users, they incite anti-Semitic or anti-Ukrainian discussions or disavow articles published on the web, according to the source.

This text is obviously about Russian state agents who work in the internet. Please stop mass deletions of relevant and sourced texts. If you continue, I will have to ask 3rd opinions at RfC and perhaps at other noticeboards.Biophys (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any linking of the event with "Russian secret police" in the source. Offliner (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement made is a secondary source, referring to an anonymous primary source. Due to anonymity of the primary source, the statement can't be verified and its reliability can't be checked. ellol (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Offliner also removed another segment. Why? Would you please restore it? Text about Polish sites describes "Russian agents" (hence the security services). This is a common practice by journalists to refer to anonymous sources, such as unnamed governmental officials. Tygodnik Powszechny qualifies as WP:RS. If you think it does not, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The primary source used by Tygodnik Powszechny is anonymous, and thus the information is unverifiable and unreliable. The Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, i.e. it must be a reliable tertiary source. But the secondary source this fragment relies upon is unverifiable, because it's besed on the anomymous primary source. That's why I suggest the information shouldn't be treated as reliable. ellol (talk)

• Unassessed Internet articles
• Unknown-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles