Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet operations by Russian secret police

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. MBisanz ^talk 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet operations by Russian secret police

This is a WP:POVFORK of web brigades...pure and simple. There is a system in Russia called SORM, which is used by police, but this article as it stands is a specifically created fork in order to further promote the web brigade conspiracy theory. There is also original research going on here, such as the so-called "Persecution of cyber-political activists", the details in that section have absolutely nothing to do with any conspiracy theory of Russian super-secret internet police. "Disruption of political blogs" and "Public discussions" is a word for word copy of edits in web brigades -- either as that article stands now, or in the past (and which this article creator is resurrecting). Note, I am not for a second saying that there are not internet operations by police; one of the most visible aspects of this type of operation is fighting cybercrime and child pornography/paedophilia. But this article is nothing of the sort, and WP is not a venue to engage in advocacy and pushing of original research and synthesis. Russavia ^Dialogue 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also note the degree of this synthesis/original research. Such as the lead which state "which is currently a part of the FSB but has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department". The KGB was disbanded with the dissolution of the USSR, nearly 20 years ago, and it was only at this stage the internet even began to be known. So WP:REDFLAG also comes into play here, in that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Not OPED type sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This matter has been already debated here. Main point: "Internet operations" is a much wider and encyclopedic subject. Operations include promotion of disinformation over the internet, hacker attacks, suppression of "cyber-dissidents", and so on. Web brigades is a more narrow subject. This is Russian version of Chinese 50 Cent Party, the teams of government-paid political bloggers (Russians were chronologically first).Biophys (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and keep to a more neutral title like Internet_operations_by_Russian_Government. Vladislav Surkov who most probably heads those operations is not a police chief in any meaning of the word. I see no reason to delete the article although it would probably help to make web brigades a daughter of this article so to avoid duplicating of the content in unrelated articles Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Wouldn't Internet activism in Russia be a more succinct title, as then it can also clearly include internet activism by all parts of society in Russia. Particularly as internet operations by Russian government still has the same POV problems, it's still all conspiracy theory. But by moving to the "activism" title, the conspiracy theories can be included with UNDUE in mind, but more relevant non-REDFLAG information on actual internet activism can be included, which will at least give the reader an understanding of the conspiracy theories and why they may exist in the first place. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Activism" denotes a spontaneity and grass-roots (not from the top) organization which is not at work here. Such a title also blurs government-run and other activities by removing the presence of authorities from the title. PetersV TALK 15:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Peters. Activism is something that the government as an apparatus is pretty much incapable of doing. The only grey area is when the computer geeks in Kremlin IRCed about the August coup -- in a sense, they were government officials, but of course, the special circumstances made sure they were acting spontaneously. In another sense, it might make more sense to liken those geeks to whistleblowers. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Alex Bakharev that Internet operations by Russian Government can be a better title. Närking (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and keep per Alex Bakharev. I do not believe this is a POV fork, as this article discusses activities of the Russian authorities, the other, Web brigades, discusses activities done by groups and individuals outside the authorities, whether or not organized by or otherwise aided. For example, I myself have run into such editors on WP, pushing the Russian position, who were subsequently revealed to be paid propaganda pushers. PetersV TALK 14:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Alex Bakharev. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep, per Alex Bakharev. Martintg (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My acquaintances in Russia tell me that web brigades is a technique commonly used by many political forces in Russia -- both the governing party and others. Russian secret police, however, is commanded only by the governing party. Hence, web brigades is a considerably wider concept than Internet operations by Russian secret police; it would do a disservice to our reader to attempt to lump these topics together into a single article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Discuss the correct title on the article talk p. DGG (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Too little evidence. I think former KGB/FSB officers who had moved to live in other country can't be trusted. Why? Because they are betrayors. I do not mean anything personal with these words. But given the Oath of Servicement all of them had given, they can't simply change the side without betrayal. And I think such people who'd crossed the red line in their mind can't be trusted, because such things as "lie" or "truth" just mean nothing to them after the act of betrayal. ellol (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But even if you trust such people, there's just too little evidence. The article is based on information from two or three people, and noone of them brought any evidence, so it can be treated as rumours, nothing more serious. The rest of the article is the criticism.

There's actually no point for discussion. There are only MAY BE and I THINK and nothing like I CAN PROVE. ellol (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Regarding Russavia's "red flag": Please also note the degree of this synthesis/original research. Such as the lead which state "which is currently a part of the FSB but has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department". The KGB was disbanded with the dissolution of the USSR, nearly 20 years ago, and it was only at this stage the internet even began to be known. There is absolutely no original research here. It's completely clear from the sentence that what has moved is signals intelligence, which far predates the Internet. If Russavia had only included the words right before where they started their quote, "some... are coordinated by Russian signals intelligence, which..." there would be no basis for advocating red flags, extraordinary claims, etc., etc. PetersV TALK 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have no issues with deleting articles which do not belong. I regret being blunt, but let's not build cases based on removing the subject from a quoted article passage, replacing it with something else, and then contending the passage is making extraordinary claims. Furthermore, as a result of this sort of apparent editorial gamesmanship, I have no expectation that I could ever have a calm reasoned discussion with Russavia regarding this topic, which is unfortunate, as that's the first step in building articles based on editorial consensus. PetersV TALK 14:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. By the way, I have been on the Internet, privately, since 1991. At that time, and prior, the Internet, better known as ARPANET, was a network of universities, governmental agencies, and leading technology firms (one of at which I was employed). Our own company's manufactured equipment and software was running illegally, smuggled into, the Soviet Union (not by our company, of course!). Trust me, the KGB was on the "Internet" 20 years ago. Russavia would do well to acquaint themselves with the facts before leaping to contentions which, aside from being fabricated where the article is concerned, are additionally rather uninformed at best. PetersV TALK 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.P.S. For the techno-dweebs, somewhere I still have the overheads for the presentation on VAX/VMS which I created and delivered to a roomful of the captains of Soviet industry at our corporate New York showcase. That's 25 years ago, so I do know of these things first-hand. PetersV TALK 14:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much noise out of nothing. Yes, there's FAPSI, signals intelligence, which develops national cryptography standards -- it's the most important of its goals -- but there's no evidence it's involved in anything different like spreading disinfornation, stuff.

The most controversial of its activities is the SORM. But of course, Russia-bashers do not care to investigate technical details. It's easy from their viewpoint: Bloody Putin, KGB Rule, Totalitarian Regime, Go Get A Pulitzer. ellol (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (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.