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

Reply to AfD nominator arguments

 * 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.
 * I belive this 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 16 references (the initial version of the article previously marked for deletion included only two references, although I increased the number of references during deletion discussion). We can change the title to "Web-brigades" if other editors recommend this. This is not a reason for deletion.Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No original research here. Everything is taken from sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE.Biophys 03:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then please cite your source that is saying that internet brigades use "active measures" methods? Ha? Vlad fedorov 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is taken from this source: According to WP:SOURCE, I used outside English translation, rather than my own. A copy of this translation can be found at talk page of Persecution of political bloggers. The original Russian text say: "его немедленно берут в оборот и проводят с ним коллективное «активное мероприятие» ". Translation: "активное мероприятие" means "active measure."Biophys 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You just interpreted "активное мероприятие" as an analog of "active measures". Moreover your translation is taken from blog - which using as a source in Wikipedia is in violation of WP:SOURCE. But how could you support your personal interpretation of such exceptional claim. According to WP:REDFLAG you should cite exceptionally good sources, and not allegations published in immigrant newspaper by citizens of foreign country, who may be working for foreign secret services or were hire by them. There is no credibility in your source. Your source is just good in evidencing of the existence of allegations by some people, but not as evidence of the existence of specific methods. This is exactly what Wikipedia policy on WP:REDFLAG means. According to your line of thought, I could create a website, where I could write an article that I am subjected in Wikipedia to US internet brigades, because there is a user who defames, abuses and pursues me. And this accroding to you would be enough for me to insert US section in the Internet brigades? Vlad fedorov 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "активное мероприятие" is from original source. It is "active measure" by any means. The original Russian source is completely consistent with WP:SOURCE. This is newspaper with editorial oversight. It does not matter if authors are immigrants or not. This is not an "exceptional claim" with regard to a living person (WP:BLP rules). English translation can be made by anyone, since it is not required by WP:SOURCE, although recommended.Biophys 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide links which confirm that there is editorial oversight in this newspaper? Huh? Vlad fedorov 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You just don't understand that WP:REDFLAG applies to all articles and not just biographies. Moreover, you conspiracy also violates WP:FRINGE.Vlad fedorov 16:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is relevant citation from Wikipedia policy you violate: "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)
 * Everything is properly contextualized.Biophys 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing has changed. You simply added 16 irrelevant sources and added information about China. Nothing has changed.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * See above. The cited sources do not tell that "every man in the internet who supports Putin - is a member of KGB "internet team". This article also does not tell this. No one abuses any users.Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what the article written by you does. I could imagine what if I would publish an article about Republicans politicians cover-up on Watergate scandal and would write that Republican criminals could be recognized by the number of traits.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * See reference to article "Conspiracy theory" by Usupovsky. This is small minority opinion. Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the opening article it is stated that it is conspiracy. Moreover, more people think it is conspiracy theory - it contradicts to what you have written. Russian Wikipedia labels it accrodingly - you just dissiminate blog Russophobe rubbish here in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * Other involved countries are China and Poland.Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot reasonably compare China and Russia, because China censures internet. As for Poland you have misinterpreted and quoted out of context Polish article.Vlad fedorov


 * 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".
 * I would like to learn opinions of other editors. If they think this is not an appropriate description, let's rephrase this.Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to wait for other russphobes to amend false translations.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sixth, false translation and original research in that "internet brigades" are working against blogs.
 * I have checked translation. It is not wrong. Of course, there are minor details which might be translated differently, as usual. I used "outside" professional translation, instead of doing this myself, as recommended by WP guidelines.Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lies, lies, lies.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * It is not possible to have a "fork" of nonexisting article.Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted reference for previous article Internet Troll Squads.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I cited exactly this source. This your statement is not supported by any sources. Biophys 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is found directly in the Tygodnik article "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".Vlad fedorov 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was said about a different statement, not the one that I cited in the article.Biophys 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprovable and irrefutable
This fucking thing is totally unprovable as well as irrefutable. Any claim made about the speculated activity is therefore total crap, and has no place in Wikipedia. The belief in this conspiracy theory may be notable as such. Or does it really rise above the "believe everything bad you hear about Russia" background noise? -- Petri Krohn 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This only means: you do not like the article. That is fine. But my or your opinions or beliefs are completely irrelevant. We are not doing any OR here. Let's simply follow Attribution rules. I believe all sources in the article are reliable. Only one of them (made by a Russian state official) claims this to be a conspiracy theory, and only with regard to Russian (not Chinese) secret internet police. Looks like a minority opinion. You are welcome to find any other good sources claiming this to be a conspiracy theory and include such references in the article. So, this is easy to correct. We are not suppose to prove anything according to Attribution. Biophys 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, no one disputed realiability of any specific sources during the deletion discussion.Biophys 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have disputed some of the instances such not showing the real source of Tygodnik Powszechny allegations and allegations of creating Livejournal fighters teams at the [Internet brigades] talk page. Please do not mislead the readers by claiming that no one disputed your article. It has been marked as "totallydisputed" just because everything is disputed.Vlad fedorov 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from AfD page

 * P.S We definitely need a user box for this, with a big KGB patch. -- Petri Krohn 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Cool!!! We definitely need this userbox with that pic! Vlad fedorov 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh... Now it's late. But anyway. Be it known to you that Biophys, at first created this page to attack me and to pronounce me and Alex Bakharev KGB troll squad members. I am going to make pictures of my living room from where I write to Wikipedia and put these photos on my user pages with title "Vlad Fedorov KGB Lair". Vlad fedorov 09:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Vlad, please stop attacking Alex Bakharev. He is excellent editor and has absolutely nothing to do with all of that. There is nothing in this article to support your groundless suggestions.Biophys 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We all appreciate your bad faith humor, Biophys. Just information for all who is here:


 * Please see here official decision on personal attack made by this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys. 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me 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. 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)
 * Looking into this. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you, Biophys, contacting Jimbo Wales directly about this. Ok? Vlad fedorov 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a personal attack. I have never accused Alex Bakharev of anything. I have never even complained about his actions. I only accused you, Vlad of vandalism and wikistalking (see the request for comments submitted by User:Colchicum Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov). Biophys 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you are just trying to provoke apersonal attack from me. Naaa.. See this instead - Requests_for_comment/Biophys.Vlad fedorov 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One option is to move this to Wikipedia: name space. -- Petri Krohn 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just an example:


 * Vlad fedorov 10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot link
I suspect this is now contaminated with external influences because of this page.

I agree. Linking to this discussion from slashdot will definitely get this page a lot more attention, and this discussion will get a lot more attention. As a random visitor from /. myself, I also felt compelled to add to this flamewar discussion with a few points.


 * I'm tempted to close this debate early as a trainwreck due to the influx of single-purpose accounts. Whether I close it now or let it finish, no clear consensus is going to emerge. Thanks, slashdot. Kafziel Talk 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD and Deletion review previously were also influxed by troll squads, virtuals and one day accounts, so what you expect of this second nomination? Everybody likes Russia and wants to help it to become more democratic by publishing some slander. If you slander me, I would be more democratic, indeed. Proxy-checking may help!!!Vlad fedorov 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)