Nanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
:::::::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. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 18:25, 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. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 18:33, 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.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk: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. ([[User:Igny|Igny]] ([[User talk:Igny|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 18:49, 29 March 2009
Internet Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Russia Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Dialogue 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 Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- 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)
- Oppose. WP:WEASEL in the lead is bad enough, why escalate the weaseling to the title? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:05, 23 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 Talk 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 Dialogue 21:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- If so, why not go directly to AfD? - Biruitorul Talk 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 Dialogue 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. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 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.) ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:44, 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 Dialogue 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
propagandainformation 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 Dialogue 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 Dialogue 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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 Dialogue 02:48, 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)
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))