Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads

Internet troll squads

Internet troll squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research devised from two tangentially related articles. Essentially an attack page against Putin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This page also derives from a series of incivil edits on User talk:Biophys#Vlad. This article was created in essence to accuse several editors, including administrator User:Alex Bakharev of editing on behalf of the KGB. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I respect you as an administrator, there is nothing on the article that accuses any editors of editing on behalf of the "KGB" (in actuality, it's the FSB, but that's another story). That is extremely unfair to accuse him of saying that, as I was the one who made those comments, whereas he only wrote an article about internet troll squads. As well, I would like to point out that no one is mentioned in the article, so I feel like that you are really being judgmental.CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either, so the sources really mean nothing to me. If its not a joke, perhaps Merge with Troll (Internet)Gelston 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. -- Pious7 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The sources are in english Whoops, confused this with a different russian language article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete - Original research.--Tom 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Except for being hoax, original research, and the term "troll squads" being coined by Biophys - the author of this article, this article was created by him in order to defame and slander me and Alex Bakharev. Please see the evidence here "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" Vlad fedorov 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (I am creator of this article). First, this is obviously not OR, which is claimed as the reason for deletion. Everything is taken from the sources. Article is based on a single reliable source, which is perfectly consitent with Wikipedia policies. Second, English translation of main source has been provided in the article. See: [1]. So, could you please read this translation, and then decide if the subject is a "hoax" and notable. As explained on talk page, this is a reliable source. Third, this article say nothing personal about Putin except that FSB workers admire him (which is probably true). So, this is not attack against Putin. Finally, this article has not been created to accuse Wikipedia editors. I planned to create it long time ago, as anyone can see looking at my personal page User:Biophys#Links_and_notes and Talk:Persecution_of_political_bloggers#English_translation_of_Russian_article_about_.22Internet_troll_squads.22 where the same source has been used. Further, I have never made any personal accusations of that kind. If someone else did, this is not my problem. The subject about "FSB trolls in Wikipedia" was opened by an anonymous user in talk page FSB, so I have mostly reacted on that. I also did not want people to discuss accusations not related to me at my talk page. Biophys 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Just a side comment. I think that comments and opinions like this one: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration undermine credibility of Wikipedia. That was one of the reasons I have created this article. I think such questions must be openly debated. That is Wikipedia policy to openly debate any problems (but of course without personal offences). That is why I made this notice: "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" If we delete this article now, then what this anonymous user and other people could think? They (not me!) will think: "Yes, of course, those KGB trolls could not tolerate such article in Wikipedia." Sorry, but they will think so. Biophys 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to your commentThe Single translation is located at blogspot.com. A blog is not a reliable source.Gelston 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. See WP:V#Language. "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves." This is satisfied. Just in case, I will then copy the complete translation of the source to the article's talk page. See: Talk:Internet_troll_squads Biophys 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Just another comment User Biophys has been warned twice for uncivil behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys. So it's hard to belive that Biophys is concerned about Wikipedia. It was the Biophys who first claimed that KGB trolls are present in the Wikipedia by creating such an entry. So basically he wants to defame Wikipedians with this article - it is an attack page Wikipedia:Attack_page. Moreover, Biophys is the user who publishes in Wikipedia information taken from the blog La Rusophobe with telling name. His edits are directed against Russian government. He also tried twice to insert a text about Putin Phallus into the Phallus article. he tried to create an article in Wikipedia about blog La Russophobe but it was deleted.Vlad fedorov 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Vlad has trolled Biophys constantly, and I feel that personal attacks do not belong here. CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov Biophys 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply to your Reply Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys. Vlad fedorov 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - POV/OR. FCYTravis 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited as is required. Probable OR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - first of all, if this article was alone, it would probably only just be a weak delete; while there is one source provided, it does not back up any claim this this is either a notable or even realistic problem. Furthermore, this article appears to be some kind of personal vendetta the creator has against another Wikipedian - in my books, that's WP:POINT. --Haemo 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's surely a conspiracy theory. ellol 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply.. If it's surely a conspiracy theory, then you must have some proof that it is right? CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. I feel that while it is a good article, it needs more sources to cite for it to be as reliable as people want.CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep I take back my delete vote, and now vote keep, as the article cites many more sources, and has been cleaned up greatly since creation. CPTGbr 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete. OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition. --Irpen 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. The phenomena is real, but the name seems to be ORish. The new name should be Interned disinformation by Russian intelligence agencies or such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete, WP:CSD G10, WP:BLP. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename and Source //Halibutt 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The best solution in these circumstances is to expand the article and add sources. Appleseed (Talk) 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to the case of disinformation by InoSMI shown in the bottom of the article, I can't help but notice the abundance of impersonation and disinformation attacks against Russian opposition figures. See the statement by Yevgenia Albats who discovered an article published under her name [2], computer translation. The Troll (Internet) article did not mention PhD researchers in its references. I believe the troll squads article is not an original research because it summarizes the referenced exhibits and analysis. If the article's neutrality is disputed, counter-arguments should be added to the article instead of deleting it. ilgiz 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you present the evidence in support of your statements and in support of your linking of these allegations with specifically internet troll squads. Do you have the evidence that Yevgenia Albats was harassed exactly by internet troll squads and why do you have such infromation? Vlad fedorov 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this original research. Let me politely ask our Polish friends to leave Russia-articles to the responsibility of Russian editors. I presume the latter know more about Russia than the former. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am strongly against such a proposal. This is a Wikipedia for everybody, and IMHO non-Russian editors are very welcome to edit Russia-related articles, which would help to make them more neutral. Often their contributions are more useful than those by Russian (or Belarusian, or Ukrainian) wikipedians, and it is often not the case that they know less about Russia than Russian wikipedians. And certainly there is nothing inherently Russian in ability to identify original research etc. Neutral As to the nomination, the nominator himself seems biased, as he sees there a personal attack against Putin which is clearly not the case. There is only one mention of Putin in this article as a third party. And the article is not an original research. It is based on sources. Their reliability seems dubious, yes, but they exist, so the nomination misses the point. Colchicum 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • After more than two years in the project, I may tell you that no Russian editor can edit Poland-related articles in English Wikipedia without facing some sort of harrassment. I assure you that I'm not the only one who was driven from English Wikipedia by a gang of Polish editors and their allies from neighbouring countries. Let's hope that the same standards will eventually be applied to Polish-related and Russia-related articles. Currently this is not the case. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this is not "Russian subject" at all. It is enough to look at the Categories where this article belong. The sources are "Polish" and "Russian", but the article is not.Biophys 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is the approach of certain editors towards the Russian topics with an exclusive POV-pushing attitude. This is demonstrated by a sudden coordinated entry of three votes which seems organized by off-wiki canvassing a lot. --Irpen 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reply to the criticism. I have made a number of changes to correct the shortcomings of this article. According to Wikipedia rules, deletion of an article is not to be decided by a majority vote. The criterion is consistency with Wikipedia rules and policies. I insist that everything is appropriate here (although the article should be improved). (1) This article was marked for deletion as allegedly inconsistent with WP:OR. Right now, it is clearly consistent. All major claims are supported by multiple reliable sources. OR means original research by a Wikipedia editor. Citing original research made and published by other people is fine. (2) It was claimed that the article was designed to mount a personal attack against certain editors. Obviously, it is not. It does not include (and never included) any names or even hints on Wikipedia editors. (3) The title of this article was criticized as "ORish". Of course, everyone is welcome to suggest a better name. This name appeared as a result of my personal translation from Russian. I prefer this name for two reasons. First, this can not be simply called "disinformation", although disinformation and astroturfing is certainly is a part of this phenomenon. Second, I tried to keep this name as general as possible, because it well might be that secret services of other countries are involved in similar activities (so, this might be not solely "Russian" phenomenon). Finally, I would like to ask you to take a second look at the article and reconsider you opinion if appropriate. Thank you. P.S. This is certainly a very interesting and notable subject that belongs to many Wikipedia categories and attracted attention of many good editors. Biophys 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No way you can justify anything under this title with whatever sources you brought up. --Irpen 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So, what title would you suggest?Biophys 20:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • See my suggestions above. Although I have to say that wrong title is no reason for deletion - the WP:RM should have been carried instead of WP:AFD.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • First, I could remove word "troll" from everywhere in the article, including title, if it helps (I thought this subject is actually related to Troll (Internet)). Something close to your title would probably be fine if the article is not deleted.Biophys 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)