Talk:Russian web brigades

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Relation to previous article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why this article does not qualify for speedy deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

References

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

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

Reasons for speedy deletion

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

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

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

Deletion of text supported by references

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

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

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

Improper title

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

Internet brigades and Wikipedia

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

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

Query the RIPE Database Search for 213.35.213.206

Switch to the RIPE TEST Database

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

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

---

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

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

Original research and falsification

Biophys inserted the following text in the article:

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

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

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

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

Предавший гласности

Национал-большевик Роман Садыхов, Анна Карпюк

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

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

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

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

Falsification and hiding of authors identities

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

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

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

The reference of Biophys is as follows:

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

I post the relevant text from the article:

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

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

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

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

According to this text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletions of the referenced text

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

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

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

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

Here is the relevant text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again original research and falsification

User Biophys inserted the following text into the article:

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

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

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

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

Falsification of Usupov citation

User Biophys has inserted the following text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research on "active measures"

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

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

User Lysy behaviour on AfD for this article

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

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

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

POV editing of article under AfD review by AfD nominator

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts by article author Biophys

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

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

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

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

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

Избранные места из наказов Владислава Суркова движению «Россия молодая»

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________

Сурков благословил «Ультрас»

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

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

Biophys 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

damaging the talk page

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

Linked to from Slashdot

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

Involvement of Vladislav Surkov

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

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

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

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

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

New falsification

Biophys has added a new falsification:

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

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

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Biophys reply

You have falsely translated the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

falsifications and original research in the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the purpose of this racist quotation?

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

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

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

translation of the quote

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

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

I soon may be blocked

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

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

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

Who was prosecuted for publications in internet?

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

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

Biophys 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there's more IMHO:

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

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

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

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

Last edits of Chinese internet brigades

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

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

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

Disputed title

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

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

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

Terms

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

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

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

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

Last edits by Ellol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DPNI

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

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

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

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

Please, not again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

На этой встрече было не более 25 человек.

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

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

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

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

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

ellol 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Name

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

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

"virtual penises" and other changes by ellol

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

Conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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