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)
- Sory to say but when I read some of you articles/comments like "Web brigades" or "2008 South Ossetia war" I also think that some no sane users would participate in Wikipedia.
So what is it I disagree with this comment.
1. There is nothing like that in English language blogs. - May be. But then what. That only means that those theoretic Web Brig-s didn't extended their activity on Western web sites. Which is strange.
2. There is nothing like that in English language blogs. - Another problem with this statemnt is that, while I'm not visiting English language blogs, I definetly see such impolite or agressive statements on YouTube. And many of those are made by Western and "prodemocratic" users. Like "You fucking arabs, we gonna screw you in Iraq", many of them contains hatred toward Russia, Vladimir Putin. And so on. So in this case it would be assumed those coments where done just by rough users and not some "CIA Web brigades". But when it comes to Russia it is credited to FSB and not such rough Russian users.
3. Both sides where using those bad words. So thats barrely an evidence of web brigades.
4. Be honest - it's just nobody care. Site admin can ban those ppls easyly and delete their offtopic posts, but he dind't done so. May be because FSB tell him not to do so :-))).--Oleg Str (talk) 09:21, 19 October 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))
- 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: [1].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)
- You deleted five large segments of sourced text[2]. 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 Wikipedia to remove undesirable information and insert disinformation[1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. According to publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, anonymous editors have always "corrected" and continue "correcting" articles of Russian Wikipedia 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" [7]
The publication in Computerra tells about possible activity of Russian agents in wikipedia (mostly Russian Wikipedia). 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.[8] 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".[9]
- ^ Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services, by Ludwig De Braeckeleer, OhmyNews, 2007-07-26.
- ^ CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits by Reuters
- ^ Wal-Mart, CIA, ExxonMobil Changed Wikipedia Entries, by Rhys Blakely, The Times, August 16, 2007
- ^ Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits' By Jonathan Fildes, BBC News
- ^ See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign, by Wired
- ^ CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries By Paul Willis
- ^ Is there only one truth? by Kivy Bird, Computerra, 26 November 2008
- ^ " Grigory Svirsky Anastasya. A story on-line (Full text in Russian)
- ^ 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.[29]
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 Wikipedia 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 based on the anomymous primary source. That's why I suggest the information shouldn't be treated as reliable. ellol (talk)
- Wrong. Deep Throat was an anonymous primary source in Watergate, and turned out to be entirely verifiable.
- All that happens when a newspaper uses an anonymous source is that the newspaper takes responsibility. The reliability of the story is to be estimated based on reputation of the newspaper combined with what the newspaper says about the anonymous source's reliability. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Digwuren, you are an established editor, why do you lie? I'm taking a pro-Russia side, but I do not lie, unlike what you did. ellol (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- The primary source used by Tygodnik Powszechny is anonymous, and thus the information is unverifiable and unreliable. The Wikipedia 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 based on the anomymous primary source. That's why I suggest the information shouldn't be treated as reliable. ellol (talk)
- 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)
A lot of funny conspiracy theories are going around regarding pecularities of Russian national interests. Some of them are rather hard to believe. But the plausibility of Internet brigades is significantly reinforced by the fact that a number of editors with well-known Russian connections keep attacking an article casting light onto the Internet brigades. If the Internet brigades' story were just an old wives' tale, it certainly wouldn't deserve such an attention, and instead of removing content from here, those people would actually watch out for this kind of vandalism, so it would be reverted a bit faster than in three hours' time. I guess Internet brigades' coverup is more important than ensuring the quality of an article about Russian economy. Very sad. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant section
I have removed the following Agents in wikipedia section:
- A number of publications suggested that the US Central Intelligence Agency may have infiltrated Wikipedia to remove undesirable information and insert disinformation[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. According to a publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, anonymous editors have always "corrected" and continue "correcting" articles of English wikipedia in the interests of English special services. Involvement of Russian security services in similar activities is likely to happen, although "this is not even interesting — everyone knows perfectly well that security bodies have a special place in structure of our [Russian] state" [6]</nowiki>
The only last sentence is marginally related to the topic of the article. The section might be inserted elsewhere, e.g. Internet_operations_by CIA or whatever Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge
See Talk:Web_brigades#Merge._again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Unilateral moves
There were several discussions of renaming/moves above. None of them produced consensus. So, please stop renaming this article from the original title. I am going to move it back to the original title.Biophys (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You should discuss it here and wait for consensus prior to making unilateral moves again.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please, provide evidence that 1) Russian "secret police" exists, 2) Russia performs Internet operations, and I will agree to your proposed title. Regards, ellol (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not a "proposed title", this is an original title. We had several discussions of renaming, and none of them produced consensus. If you agree to restore old name per WP:Consensus policy, we start discussion. If new name selected after the discussion per consensus, we will rename/move it accordingly.Biophys (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you ignoring my question, Biophys? I would like to view the sources which prove the topic. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I want to make sure that you agree to follow policies, because otherwise the discussion does not make any sense.Biophys (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, again, why are you ignoring my question? ellol (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- One can easily propose alternative and possibly better titles, such as Internet warfare by Russian state, but this should be orderly debated and decided instead of making unilateral moves. Agree?Biophys (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the best shot (along the line of compromise) would be Cyberwarfare by Russian state. We have article Cyberwarfare, and this is the closest thing. This is not allegations, but a real thing. If we had "Allegations of cyberwarfare" instead of Cyberwarfare, that would be strange, is not it?Biophys (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- You must have forgot that WP is not about The Truth, but about reliable sources. We don't really care what you think about the Russian state. Please stop making unilateral moves and faking consensus. This is not watched 24/7, so if someone doesn't reply in 2 hours, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.Anonimu (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the best shot (along the line of compromise) would be Cyberwarfare by Russian state. We have article Cyberwarfare, and this is the closest thing. This is not allegations, but a real thing. If we had "Allegations of cyberwarfare" instead of Cyberwarfare, that would be strange, is not it?Biophys (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- One can easily propose alternative and possibly better titles, such as Internet warfare by Russian state, but this should be orderly debated and decided instead of making unilateral moves. Agree?Biophys (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, again, why are you ignoring my question? ellol (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I want to make sure that you agree to follow policies, because otherwise the discussion does not make any sense.Biophys (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you ignoring my question, Biophys? I would like to view the sources which prove the topic. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not a "proposed title", this is an original title. We had several discussions of renaming, and none of them produced consensus. If you agree to restore old name per WP:Consensus policy, we start discussion. If new name selected after the discussion per consensus, we will rename/move it accordingly.Biophys (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please, provide evidence that 1) Russian "secret police" exists, 2) Russia performs Internet operations, and I will agree to your proposed title. Regards, ellol (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My changes
I made a number of changes as follows. First, I made some changes per discussions above, such as one suggested by Alex Bakharev. Second, I checked everythin for consistency with sources. If something is still inconsistent, please explain what is it. Third, I removed a couple of segments that provide opinion pieces by non-notable people (we do not even have articles about them). If there are objections, let's discuss. What is it?Biophys (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, your edit, whatever good it might be in other respects, has at least one severe drawback. It misinterprets a source:
- While it's stated "According to a publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, the involvement of Russian security services in such activities, especially in Russian wikipedia, almost certainly takes place, although "this is not even interesting — everyone knows perfectly well that security bodies have a special place in structure of our [Russian] state" [2]"
- In fact, that article only says: "О том, как анонимные редакторы, прикрывшись псевдонимами суровых вики-администраторов вроде SlimVirgin, правили и продолжают править англоязычные статьи народной энциклопедии в интересах англо-американских спецслужб, подробно рассказывалось в прошлом году ("КТ" #703, "Шпионы в стране Википедия"). Тем же самым наверняка занимаются и российские спецслужбы в русском сегменте Википедии, но демонстрировать это неинтересно - все и так прекрасно знают, что органы безопасности занимают особое место в структуре нашего государства (или, скажем, Китая, к которому мы в этом отношении куда ближе, чем к Америке или Западной Европе)."
- It is: "We have written in detail how anonymous editors under cover of pen-names of serious Wiki-administrators like SlimVirgin edit and continue to edit English language articles of people's encyclopedia in interests of English-American security services the last year (link). Likely, Russian security services are engaged in the same sort of activities in Russian Wikipedia, but it's not interesting to prove that -- everybody knows clearly that security services take a special place in the structure of our government (or, say, China, who we are closer to in that respect than to e.g. U.S. or Western Europe)."
- Don't you think that there's like some nuance lost in your translation? Best regards, and thanks for your hard labour, ellol (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Тем же самым наверняка занимаются и российские спецслужбы в русском сегменте Википедии, но демонстрировать это неинтересно - все и так прекрасно знают, что органы безопасности занимают особое место в структуре нашего государства".
- This is fully consistent with my text. Of course we may ask third opinion, but you have to stop blind reverts to allow normal editorial work towards consensus. OK?Biophys (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, I just can't agree, that "но демонстрировать это неинтересно" can be translated as "this is not even interesting". But I can agree that it can be translated as "it's not interesting to show that", "it's not interesting to prove that". Yet, the piece is not consistent without referring to the activity of the English-American security services as a proven fact. That was the point of that piece, and removing it is twisting the context. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please, stop referring to my edits as blind reverts. I disagree with that wording. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Here it is. Biophys (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I can propose how this passage could sound: "According to a publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, Russian security services are likely involved in editing Russian Wikipedia, similarly to the way English-American security services are editing the English Wikipedia, although "this is not even interesting to prove — everyone knows clearly that security bodies take a special place in structure of our [Russian] state" ellol (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree, but this only make sense if you stop blind reverts. Note that my last edit was not a revert to any previous version.Biophys (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, I understand that I might be a perfectionist and that's my bias, but I can't do nothing with that. I just can't stand looking how you are making changes which are so imperfect! The best way we could do well would be to introduce changes slowly, one piece at a time, on due discussion, and everything would go fine without nerves. ellol (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did just that with you yesterday in Russian apartment bombings. The result? You simply reverted everything we agreed about.Biophys (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, where are you hurrying to? There's a plethora of time to discuss everything and to make all the necessary changes. I reverted your edit, because you made changes into the introduction which weren't discussed. Besides, I only showed some problems with your edits, and I am repeating this for the fourth time, I guess. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Besides, not all contributors might be able to stand your overwhelming rhytme of work, to track all proposals and changes. It is very hard even for a MIPT graduate like me. ellol (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- If I am annoying you (I guess I am), allow other people to participate as well, so you won't have to deal only with me. I'm sure it would only help to improve the Wikipedia quality. ellol (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did just that with you yesterday in Russian apartment bombings. The result? You simply reverted everything we agreed about.Biophys (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biophys, I understand that I might be a perfectionist and that's my bias, but I can't do nothing with that. I just can't stand looking how you are making changes which are so imperfect! The best way we could do well would be to introduce changes slowly, one piece at a time, on due discussion, and everything would go fine without nerves. ellol (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit war
Please stop the edit war. I have reverted back the article to its longstanding stable version. Discuss before making any more blind revert. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
POV edit
I strongly disagree with this POV-pushing edit. First, the accusation of cyber warfare is made by multiple independent reliable sources, so it is a fact, not claim, per WP:CLAIM. And I object addition of Category:Conspiracy theories in this article. It is not supported by any neutral third party source that it is conspiracy theory or it is not a dominant view that it is a conspiracy theory. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, there is a group of editors who constantly declare everything they do not like a "conspiracy theory", no matter that sources tell something different. So far, I saw only one source (the article by Yusupovsky) that claims Russian teams of political bloggers rather than internet warfare in general to be a conspiracy theory.Biophys (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only really reliable sources (per WP:RS) in this article either say there's no proof of such involvement by the Russian state or that there's a possibility that wasn't confirmed to this date. Please don't transform WP in a political soapbox. Also, cats are for navigational purposes, and the English language phrase best describing the subject is indeed "conspiracy theory", even if no source calls so the topic in its integrity (of course, this is mainly because the article is indeed just a WP-compiled original synthesis, a wiki-op-ed).Anonimu (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- You only support what I said. This page currently quotes 28 WP:RS sources, only one of which calls web brigades (rather than internet warfare in general!) to be a "conspiracy theory". And you still insist it should be called "conspiracy".Biophys (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only really reliable sources (per WP:RS) in this article either say there's no proof of such involvement by the Russian state or that there's a possibility that wasn't confirmed to this date. Please don't transform WP in a political soapbox. Also, cats are for navigational purposes, and the English language phrase best describing the subject is indeed "conspiracy theory", even if no source calls so the topic in its integrity (of course, this is mainly because the article is indeed just a WP-compiled original synthesis, a wiki-op-ed).Anonimu (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- ^ CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits by Reuters
- ^ Wal-Mart, CIA, ExxonMobil Changed Wikipedia Entries, by Rhys Blakely, The Times, August 16, 2007
- ^ Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits' By Jonathan Fildes, BBC News
- ^ See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign, by Wired
- ^ CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries By Paul Willis
- ^ Is there only one truth? by Kivy Bird, Computerra, 26 November 2008