Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Internet brigades

[edit]
Internet brigades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Recreation of deleted article, Original research, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOURCE, Misattribution, False translation, Undue weight and Weasel words, POV fork from previously deleted article, attack page Original version of previously deleted article. Essentially SoapBox WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Vlad fedorov 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys just don't understand that WP:REDFLAG applies to all articles and not just biographies. Moreover, his conspiracy also violates WP:FRINGE. Here is relevant citation from Wikipedia policy Biophys violates: "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article, but neither must it necessarily be excluded from an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution Vlad fedorov 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Preceding events to the creation of the article

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me (Vlad fedorov) due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.
However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"
diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.
I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only these accusations are false, but they have nothing to do with this article. Let's discuss content of this article, not people.Biophys 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Here you could find the original version of the article Internet troll squads.
  • Eighth, Tygodnik Powszechny actually writes that "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". Then it writes "According to Polish specialists in Russian affairs", the names of these are not disclosed, so it may be just Polish KGB disinformation and an act of Poland aggresion against Russia. Moreover, the first voting at AfD was rigged by Biophys and his Polish friends canvassing outside the Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninth, Biophys had made an original research when he added that Internet brigades use "active measures" methods. No any links are given.
  • Tenth, Biophys hides real sources of allegations. The source of the information about creation teams of Livejournal fighters is not The New Times newspaper, but allegations of national-bolshevik Roman Sadykhov. Conmsidering that this party uses fascist symbols, calls its regional commanders gauliaghters, like fascist were calling their leaders. The source of Polish allegations is not Tygodnik Powsechny, but anonymous Polish Experts on Russian Affairs. All this could be easily ascertained by looking at links.Vlad fedorov 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments Biophys 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You actually haven't replied to anything posted here. I just added more questions for you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_brigades#Biophys_keeps_his_falsifications_and_original_research_in_the_article. I have added more falsifications and original research cases for which you are in response.Vlad fedorov 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that Biophys failed to give his sources:
  1. ) Falsification of "group of investigative journalists" which are journalist, historian and programmer in reality.
  2. ) Deletions of proper identification of the real sources of information for allegations by Tygodnik Powszechny -- anonymous "Polish specialists on Russian affairs".
  3. ) Falsifications of Usupov citation - intentioanly false translation.
  4. ) Original research on "active measures" - not sourced to any source despite my requests. Vlad fedorov 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys has also falsified the following translation, he wrote in the article: "It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.<ref name="Surkov"/>

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!!!! Later he inserts english word "only" to right translation which changes things again to false translation - "not only to protect" as opposite to "not to protect" Vlad fedorov 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per abovementioned. Vlad fedorov 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the allegations are supported by the sources. I do not remember the prev. article, but I see that this is not devoted to any one country. I have been canvassed to oppose this article, as I believe have a number of others. I have never been in contact with biophys. Entirely on my own account, I judge it honest reporting, appropriate for WP. I can understand the POV that would wish to pretend that the methods of the KGB have not continued to the present. The very attempt to suppress this article might perhaps be taken to indicated otherwise.DGG 05:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How your vote corresponds to Fringe Theories guideline of Wikipedia? Please explain. Vlad fedorov 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English translation of reference 2 (first publication on this subject) say: "web-brigades". "Internet brigades" is a better wording in my opinion. But this can be easily corrected and not a reason for deletion. Russian version also calls them "web-brigades" or "forum brigades". Biophys 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong!!! Reference 2 uses term "brigades", only once it says "web brigade". So you have confirmed that you've done original research, because you cited no sources for your "internet brigades". Thank you so much. Moreover reference 2 is published on blog, so it is violation of Wikipedia policies to use blog entries.Vlad fedorov 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Russian article is a reliable source. Providing English translation is not neccessary, although desiarable. So everything is consistent with WP policies.Biophys 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the whole article doesn't correspond to the Russian text of the original russian article. You have done a lot of original research.Vlad fedorov 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Russian article is an immigrant advertising newpaper with low circulation. English translation is from blog and falsifies Russian text. Moreover, you, Biophys has added to the original research a lot of texts not relevant.Vlad fedorov 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Czesc Piotrus. Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference. How your vote corresponds to Fringe Theories guideline of Wikipedia? Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling this is a hoax. Among all cited sources, there is only one (Usupovsky) that claims this to be a "conspiracy theory" (not a hoax). So, this is small minority opion, and it was described as such. I agree that originally submitted stub was not good. So, I worked a lot to improve the article. Now it is significantly bigger, well-referenced, less POV, etc. This is exactly what WP rules ask us to do: create interesting articles supported by multiple reliable sources. Of course, it can be improved further.Biophys 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rules say: verifiability, not truth. No one is proving anything here. There are many complicated phenomena and controversial subjects described in WP. How to deal with them? Do not invent or research anything yourself. Simply follow reliable sources whatever they say. It is exactly what I did. Your are talking about "absense of any research". Yes, I did not do any original research of my own. And I am not suppose to judge research of others. I only have to make sure that the sources are reliable, and their content is properly described in this artice. If you can provide any reliable sources which say: this particular reserach and claims made by Polyanskaya, Svirsky, journalists from Guardian and reports by New Times and grani.ru are wrong - such sources can be cited in the article. I found only one such source: claims by Usupovsky (with regard to only publication by Polyanskaya), and it is included. Biophys 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not truth? Thank you. I do not have to reject nonsense. There are no names in sourced articles, no direct evidences. All is easy. Economic growth => spread of internet => internet hooligans. Journalists — liberal democratic journalists — encountered them and wrote article about internet brigades. Fun? Not really. Fair? Not at all. ellol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I am creator of this article). I will answer to AfD nominator's claims at the talk page.Biophys 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article still has bad title and requires massive cleanup: I have to agree that it dangerously close to original research by mixing/matching different phenomena into one text: Russia + China + CyberArmy. Nevertheless the organized intereference into internet opinion flow is an observable and non-surprizing fact or opinion. `'mikka 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Referenced. But possibly bad title. --Lysytalk 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be renamed. Bad title as I already mentioned above. Any suggestions for a better one ? --Lysytalk 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - once again, this article is still about as good as it was before. I'm still not convinced this is at all a notable phenomenon, since the key sources are very slim, and it smells like WP:OR, and the creating editor seems to have some kind of argument to be made using the pages. However, none of that really matters, since there's no coherent reason presented to remove it. --Haemo 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Internet disinformation. Good article, nicely sourced, but potentially flamebait title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blast san (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article makes for a good read and provides a fair collection of references by usual Wiki standards. Even though the subject might be perceived as controversial by some, the article, as is stands now falls far beyond the scope of AfD injunction. It is equally important in my view to keep the title as it is because it’s a loan-word from an already established term coined in another language. --Poeticbent  talk  00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference. And additionaly could you cite me source on Russian where the loan word is used? Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer above (references 2 and 3) and article in Russian Wikipedia. Of course, there is a question of best translation. I want to ask native speakers: is "Web-brigades" a better translation than "Internet brigades"? Biophys 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web search is not as difficult as it sounds, Vlad fedorov. I suggest you do it yourself next time, but here are but a few search results for everybody else to take a note of:
Google Results: 59 for Веб-бригады (English: Internet brigades) [1] And please don't spam this page with repeated questions under each and every positive vote, because it won't make your voice sound louder and personally I don't particularly enjoy it. --Poeticbent  talk  06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. How many of these links are related to our subject and how many of them are not forums, blogs, wikis and other unreliable sources which use is prohibited by Wikipedia policies? Perhaps instead of making personal attacks on me and voicing your personal dislikeness of me, you should read these sources and present us reliable link which names these legendary KGB fellas "internet brigades"? You was so quick to state that the article is referenced, but you don't give us links? How many articles in Wikipedia are referenced to Google? Why you are unable to show us one normal link to reliable source which uses the term "internet brigades" and states that Russian Security Service has such "internet brigades"? You Google spamming is of no use here in Wikipedia. May I translate sources on the first page of your Google search for the word "веб-бригада"? The first - link to Russian Wikipedia, where is no source is shown to the term "web brigades" (and different term is used from "internet brigade" also, the term used by Russian Wikipedia is "web-brigades" and also there are no any sources on where it was taken), second link is to Occult Library (nice place if you are satanist), third link is to forum on crime rate (nothing related to our subject), fourth link is to the forums of Uzbekistan immigrants, fifth link is to the forum of GZT.ru, sixth link is to the forum of Ukrainian president, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth links are to German Russian forum. Why you couldn't cite reliable source? By the way, Google search for "польша страна идиотов" (English - poland, a land of idiots) shows 285,000 results. Should we create such an article in Wikipedia by your line of logic and your own standarts? You won't believe, but search shows even some articles from Rzeczpospolita newspaper and even Gazeta Wyborcza!!! Ja personalnie uwielbiam czytac Wyborcza! Search for "USA a land of idiots" - 1,110,000 results. Search for "russia a land of idiots" is 936,000 results. I think you have a lot of work to do here in Wikipedia. Perhaps you could "google" your opponents. I wish you good luck. Vlad fedorov 08:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the discussion that was here to the talk page (here), as it was not dealing with the article, but with user conduct. Regards, ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Petri Krohn, I respectfully disagree. First, only one source claims this to be a "conspiracy theory". So, this is small minority opinion. Second, there is no single mentioning of KGB in this article. This organization officially does not exist any more. But anyone is free to make any boxes and put them to his/her user page.Biophys 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. What claim was not supported? Every claim in this article is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE in my opinion.Biophys 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Haemo. The sources could be more diverse, but on the whole this is a decent enough start for an article on this supposed phenomenon. Articles relating to intel ops will often have to rely on sources that are of a somewhat speculative nature; maybe the text should make that clearer. Sandstein 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man! What you speak about? The aim of those Troll Squads is intimidation and disinformation. How this relates to the intelligence? And why USA support of terrorism is constantly being censured in English Wikipedia?Vlad fedorov 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I am getting the impression this is more a content dispute than anything else (e.g. the remark And why USA support of terrorism is constantly being censured in English Wikipedia? just above me). The subject is real and deserves coverage in an encyclopedia, although it required rigourous cleanup and perhaps a merge with Information warfare should be considered. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from mainspace but move to the author's userspace rather than delete in order to give him a chance to use his work by adding to the existing articles or starting, finally, a proper article (proper both by name and by scope) on his pet project. This article, however, is as unencyclopedic as the deleted one and is even very close to it. --Irpen 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. You disputed the title of the article. Can you suggest anything better? Of course, the article could be called "state-sponsored on-line information warfare teams" (or "Russian information warfare teams" if to exclude materials about China). But the current title seems to be more concise and clear...Biophys 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't offer you a title until the article has a clear scope. Is is about the conspiracy theory? Is it about the Putin regime's underground effort to affect the world through an internet? Is it about the broader than Russia phenomenon? Current addition of China looks totally artificial and WP:POINTy. Where is the current title from? Once this all becomes clear, I could offer you a title. I can see many possible scopes coming out of this topic and currently the article does not have any clarity on what its scope is. Therefore, I don't see it in mainspace. --Irpen 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A request. May I ask AfD nominator (Vlad Fedorov) do not edit this article during the deletion discussion?! Everyone else is welcome. Vlad transforms this article to a garbage in order to "prove" that article is bad and facilitate its deletion. This is not fair. Biophys

The answer is no. Because you falsify information from the sources. You add a lot of original research. And by the way, it is not your userpage in your namespace. This deletion by you of the text from the source you cite demonstrates your Anti-Russian bias and falsification of sources. Good luck.Vlad fedorov 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkable that AfD nominator can not wait until the end of the AfD discussion, but immediately edits the article to make it worse and prove his point. This is uncivil.Biophys 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkable that author of this article Biophys - reverts corrections of his falsifications, misattributions, original research to push his article through AfD. We could add these methods to the methods of Internet brigades!!! Vlad fedorov 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are false. Vladislav Surkov was involved. The text about him was in the in the cited source: О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы», said Surkov.Biophys 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accuse, just state facts. Vladislav Surkov is involved according to allegations of [[2]] Roman Sadykhov, who claimed that he heard a "secret speech" of Vladislav Surkov. We have to believe to the representative of political party currently banned for inciting ethnic hatred, exploiting nazist methods in its work and wearing fascist symbolics. You also misstaributed allegations as facts. You presented interview with [[3]] Roman Sadykhov as facts. No one has ever established the existence of internet brigades.Vlad fedorov 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And, yes, some of the reactions on this page remind me of the line "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet (III, ii, 239). — Turgidson 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article is well sourced and relates to an interesting subject. From some reactions I can read on this page, I would rather think that this article is closer to the truth than some here claim. I am even considering to translate in into French within the next weeks. --Lebob-BE 07:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree with the people who call it well-sourced. It isn't, it's still full of speculation and such. And the counter-reactions here are no indication of its merit. But! It does also contain some true, sourced information, and yes, it is definitely in the middle of a dispute. So, it's a start. Let's have at it and see where it winds up, maybe consider a merge at that point, and keep the disputed tags on in the meantime. Do not delete sourced information. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstract thought. Do you, Biophys, want to say us, that people in FSB, instead of performing their direct duties, are having fun in internet blogs and forums?! It's disgraceful and very revolting! I think, we should write an open collective letter or something to the President and director of FSB. We are fair taxpayers, and we have the right to know, that FSB doesn't have fun at internet forums in the working time, but really works to safeguard the Homeland! ellol 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's act immediately, friends! While the bastartds are relaxing at the working place, Homeland is defenseless! Vlad Fedorov! I have already composed the draft of the letter, I need your help to make it legally correct! Biophys! The land of your ancestors is defenseless! We'll give you parabellum, and you'll protect its borders! Hurry! Every minute may become the last for the country! ellol 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since your question is about FSB, let's discuss it here: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#What_is_the_purpose_of_FSB.3F. In short, NKVD, KGB and FSB never worked to "safeguard the Homeland", but to control the entire Russian population, and importantly the public opinion abroad (!) (two $ billions were spent only for funding foreign anti-war movements). They work and always worked against civilian populations of their own country and other countries. Hence, the disinformation and propaganda is their primary goal.Biophys 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good you have appeared here! I already wanted to leave. You can take parabellum in the room 237, campus building N5. The code is A43HF4. And one more thing. The mayor appointed you the rank of junior sergeant. Now, really hurry. Your sector for tonight is the Far East and Syberia. Then, put the parabellum backwards. Damnit! I'll find somebody who will substitute you. Guys! who want to patrol area from Kaliningrad to the Ural mountains for tonight? Sign here! ellol 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete poorly sourced with unreliable sources, recreation of deleted material, POV fork of a twice deleted article, original research, neologism, conspiracy theory and about a million other reasons for deletion. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note May I note respectfully that The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters sources are related to a tiny section on China? No such sources are about Russia. The world has nothing about internet brigades in Russia. Vlad fedorov 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had already come to wide-scale propagandist campaign against Russia. But you do not notice it, because you have no solid knowledge about Russia. If WP writes Russians are eating christian babies for breakfast you'll trust even that. ellol 05:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the reasons listed above, additionally the sources come from credible organizations including the Guardian. At the very least the popular media is reporting on it. --BuddyJesus 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note May I note respectfully that The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters sources are related to a tiny section on China? No such sources are about Russia. The world has nothing about internet brigades in Russia. Vlad fedorov 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clarify language that it is a belief held by a number of people, and possibly a conspiracy theory, and that the existence of said brigades is controversial. However, I think it meets the criteria under fringe theories, and furthermore from reading the discussion I have come to suspect that many of the objections to the article have to do with the content and not bona fide research or POV concerns, and may be political in nature. As long as the article presents itself as documentation of a social phenomenon, I think we should err on the side of retaining it. --Kadin2048 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I've seen several sources of media referencing this type of behavior in several formats, not to mention having witnessed it myself (yes, yes, original research). I look forward to working on this page a bit once I find more information in the American media about it, because this clearly is not localized phenomena - it's happening in many places. Besides -- I'm always up for a good conspiracy. Kuroji 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very well-sourced article. Even if the "internet brigades" do not exist, it has been referenced enough by outside media to warrant notation. ASBands 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--This page was linked to from /.slashdot at about this time. Expect many more votes as a result. Paladinwannabe2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but if it overlaps with any similar articles on Internet censorship merge it . Sources need to be improved. Even if such brigades are a conspiracy theory it is worth documenting the theory (and labelling it as such). Maybe it could be extended to a general examination of sockpuppets and astroturfing for the purpose of censorship, removing the emphasis on only one or two countries?
  • Keep., but I should point out that similar teams can be found in Chinese (網特, which means government agent on network), and it should not be Russian-only issue. Once information is available, I hope this page can be generalized to contain both Russian and Chinese context, not just Russian context. User:csmth 13:50 11 April 2007 (HKT)
  • Delete. An article seems to be nothing more than a hearsay, with an effort to legitimize it by citing "sources". The list of sources contains Reuters and Washinton Post, which is misleading, since both of them support a tiny "Miscellaneous" section of the article, not the bulk of the article which describes Internet brigades in Russia. Other sources are extremely unreliable. The "meaty" parts of the article, that is, the Behavior and Tactics sections are so generic as to be useless. -- Peter malenkov (talk 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep when it comes to contentious articles, the things that are contended should be removed, cleaned up, sourced, and attributed. The article on the whole discusses a matter which has definitely received major media attention and does have verifiable sources available. Notability is established and sourced. The article needs cleanup, but it's far from a lost cause. This article has much higher quality than a great deal on wikipedia. So with regards to policy, it's a keeper. With regards to my own opinion on the matter, there's something ammusing about deleting an article about internet censorship. i kan reed 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there. Not to mention I find it funny when a portion of the people suggesting deletion have been created in the last three months or less, with one created not very long at all before this AFD came about. Kuroji 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who else you might be referring to, but if you are talking about me, then I confirm that I have registered upon seeing the article to cast my vote against it without being anonymous. With that taken out of the way, I do not think you can deny what I said, that is, that the content of the Behavior and Tactics sections is way too generic, and that the few sources that actually carry some weight support not the alleged operations of "Internet brigades" of Russian origin (the description of which make for the bulk of the article), but rather something that happened in the Western world or in China. I say either delete the article or split it into two, separating international stuff from stuff specific to Russia (and then probably kill the bits specific to Russia since none of them are supported by a credible source), or, well, try cleaning up the article one more time (not likely to help, given that this would be attempt #3 already). Peter malenkov 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original research etc., assuming it applies here at all (I can't say either way) is not a reason to delete an article: it's a reason to clean up an article. Deletion should really only concern itself with whether a topic is itself encyclopaedic and noteworthy, or whether, if it is, the article is so bad that it can't possibly be salvaged and that it's better to start over from scratch. I don't see why either of these criteria would apply here, though. -- Schneelocke 08:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with preferably a rename. Well-sourced, the issue is too similar to already well-known techniques of astroturfing to be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. KiloByte 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative and basing on original research rather then encyclopedic article. The main definition of article already have problems, so how his article can be equaled to encyclopedic article, then the basic foundation of it lacks support? Important claims of this article relays only on one online source rather then established academic sources, making it as one author speculation. Quite many sources are used for secondary points only rather then main topic. Article name – another problem of this article, btw probably his is the main base of these brigades.M.K. 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a vast amount of scholarly literature on Russian propaganda and disinformation (see here) that shows the Russians have an infrastructure for setting up such attacks (see Godson and Schultz 'Dezinformatsia: The strategy of Soviet Disinformation'. The times have changed. The Internet is the new media and they have evolved with the technology. The Russians still have a considerable intelligence collection effort and it is quite reasonable that they have a propaganda and disinformation framework in action as well.Evud 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into your sources and found nothing in support of existence of Internet brigades. These sources even don't use this term "internet brigades". Moreover you just jam two different things "intelligence collection" and "disinformation through the internet". As for "intelligence collection" Wikipedia itself is used as Intelligence Tool article. Citation:

"Wikipedia "has steadily grown in popularity, credibility, and influence to the point that it is now used and referenced in U.S. Government intelligence products," explained Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a group that monitors government information policy, in a recent blog post".

But there is no information in your sources confirming the existence of Russian Internet brigades. So please don't post links leading readers to nowhere. It is not quite polite to force us to spend a lot of time searching through this rubbish in order to end up with nothing.Vlad fedorov 07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Russians have had a very successful propaganda and disinformation campaign in action for over 70 years. This historial trend of using propaganda and disinformation has been in use since by Russian before the second world war (source: koch, s. 'double lives: stalin, willi munzenberg and the seduction of the intellectuals') and that framework existed up into the late 80's and into the early 90's (source: 'Soviet Active Measures in the "Post-Cold War" Era 1988-1991' A Report Prepared at the Request of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations by the United States Information Agency June 1992). Bureaucracies like that don't change over night. There is a strong possibility that the infrastructure is still there especially considering the Russians found such operations very successful (source: Anastasi, P. Chapter 11 'Soviet Disinformation in Greece: A quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Ethnos' in 'The New Image Makers'). Essentially, Vlad, you are denying factual history, you are denying the nature of bureaucracies, and you are denying the fact that a nation state would just 'drop' a useful method of intelligence.
You said: "Moreover you just jam two different things "intelligence collection" and "disinformation through the internet". No I didn't jam them together. I guess you missed the part where I put "still have a considerable intelligence collection effort" "AND" (written in capital letters for your reading comprehension skills) "it is quite reasonable that they have a propaganda and disinformation framework in action as well". It is quite reasonable to assume that, considering the above historial trends. Not only that, but there is multiple intelligence functions used by state and non-state actors. The four functions of intelligence being: collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action (with propaganda and disinfo being subsets of covert action programs)(Sources: Sherman, M. 'Intelligence Power in Peace and War' and Godson, R. 'Dirty Tricks and Trump Cards'). For an intelligence community to gather, and act on, complete information they have to be utilizing all four functions. The fact that the Russians still have a widespread intelligence collection effort directed towards the west (sourced above in my first entry) is enough for me to make the analytical leap that other intelligence functions like counter-intelligence and covert action are still in wide spread use.
You then state "I have looked into your sources and found nothing in support of existence of Internet brigades." Again that wasn't the point. The above paragraphs extrapolate on the historical issue. Secondly, there is a reason why there is limited information on this phenomenon. Penetrating a states secrets (and that's what we are talking about here, a secret network for online disinformation that has possibly been unravelled) should be beyond the capability of a bunch of wikipedia and Internet users. We are only ever going to see bits and pieces, and even then, the network is going to be like onion layers with security and deception spread between layers. That's the nature of intelligence. The fact that the person who created this article has done an excellent job at synthesizing the sources, to create a more illuminating picture of a phenomenon we know little about, is actually an outstanding achievement in open source intelligence gathering.
It is also telling that you are more caught up in the validity of the term 'Internet Brigades'. The word is never the thing. Perhaps someone will come up with a better term to describe what is happening. It's arguing over semantics and a waste of time. But perhaps wasting our time is your MO? Which brings me to the topic of you Vlad, I'm curious about you (and some of the others on here). I'm curious about your relentless pursuit and near obsession with this article. In finishing, what is your motivation here?Evud 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, possibly rename and keep up the good job sourcing it. //Halibutt 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (see my comment below)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. There's a lot of flaming going on around this article, but it looks like the article has shaped up as a result of the criticism and attention. What started as a nutjob conspiracy article is now barely worth reading. This could shape up to be a good article with some more work. I agree that it may need remaing or be merged with another section. Paladinwannabe2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think it should be renamed and perhaps have parts of it discussed in Internet Censorship. I'll have my Russian friend read the article to make sure that it's correct. Keep the factual dispute tag until we can make sure that this is a real phenomenon. As an aside, I'm not sure why there is even a vote about this article. If it's a conspiracy theory then feel free to make the article such, but deleting it completely is blatant censorship. If, for example, there's an article up that criticizes Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, are we going to have a vote about it? And if the majority of votes are from Turkish contributers that are against it, are we going to take it down? The same applies for an article critical of Islam, or anything else. This vote seems to be along those lines as well, with Russian contributers against it (I'm Russia though, just don't read well). I'm not even sure why the last one was taken down... it should have been marked as a conspiracy theory, not taken down. Codingmonkey 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article - Biophys - refuses to name it conspiracy theory. Please see his definition of "internet brigades". Vlad fedorov 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This article does not criticize Russia at all! It describes a phenomenon that may be related to activities of secret services and PR department of the current Putin's administration. They are not Russia.Biophys 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Biophys is also an author of deleted article on blog "La Russophobe". Biophys also republishes a lot of material from blog "La Russophobe". The English translation of an article given as a source to the current AfD article is taken from this blog. It also differs from the original article on Russian, because author of the blog added to the translations his comments. Biophys also publishes materials from blog La Russophobe to Boris Stomakhin article.Vlad fedorov 07:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that user Halibutt repeatedly inserts here his votes, supposedly to advance his POV. I think this should be addressed.Vlad fedorov 10:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be accidental. I've notified Halibutt and I'm sure he'll be here to remove his second vote shortly. In the meantime, I advise you to review WP:AGF. By the way, your liberal use of boldface (on this page and elsewhere) makes it look like you're always yelling, so go easy on it. Appleseed (Talk) 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Pole covering other Pole by coming short of WP:NPA? Look, you seem to be quite well contented with the same use of boldface by Biophys. SHOUTING is quite something different. You are too imaginative. And by the way, I also advise you to visit WP:AGF, especially when something "look like" for you. Vlad fedorov 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I knew I already voted on this article, but thought my previous vote was in the previous voting. BTW, in addition to AGF, you might want to read the notification on top of this very page. Particularly the remark that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. I did not come here to advance my POV, but to propose a solution. And this has nothing to do with mine nationality - or yours for that matter. I bet you wouldn't like to be judged by your nationality rather than by your words and beliefs. If so, please be so kind as to extend the same rule to others. //Halibutt 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. As a creator of this article, I must partially agree with arguments of User:Codingmonkey (see his arguments). There are no any reasons for this article even to be considered for AfD. It should be clear from this discussion for an outside viewer that some users here simply do not like each other. Whatever their problems are, they have nothing to do with this article.Biophys 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you Biophys agree to mark this article as conspiracy theory if you agree with User:Codingmonkey? Vlad fedorov 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And is this your reply for all the reasons for deletion put at the top of the page? This is ridiculous. You haven't responded for hell number of questions about WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:ATTRIBUTION and consider this ok? Please, give us sources for your insertion of active measures term in the defenition of Internet brigades?Vlad fedorov 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer in all detail here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments.Biophys 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my objections there too. I doubt that you have details indeed. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments. Vlad fedorov 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these very detailed answers and suggestions on such a long list of articles violations of Wikipedia policies is very ridiculous. It seems that people coming just to make the visibility of support.Vlad fedorov 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137933287"