Jump to content

Talk:Web brigades/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Should Chinese teams be mentioned here?

I believe there is no much difference between the Russian and Chineese teams: they are all teams of governemnt-paid bloggers who promote disinformation and prevent free discussions in political blogs. What's the difference? So, let's mention them.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, for the umpteenth time, and many have said this, this article is on the Russian conspiracy theory only. Linking online crime teams in BFE to this nuttery is pure original research. So is other alleged teams. Perhaps you can explain why you continue to WP:OWN this article Biophys. As it stands now, I will work on the AfD for this in the coming days, because the entire article is built upon the dillusions of some paranoid hack. It is not built upon any sources past that. Can you also explain why you have also removed Category:Conspiracy theories from the cats, and also why you have re-included a link to your favourite blog, La Russophobe? This article is just one big WP:REDFLAG WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX. --Russavia Dialogue 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please debate one issue at a time. No one is telling about "online crime teams" here. This is about governemnt-paid bloggers who promote disinformation and prevent free discussions in political blogs. If there are such teams in Egypt per WP:RS, this can be included here. I do not know such sources.Biophys (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Web_brigades#Netherlands. Please explain. --Russavia Dialogue 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed.Biophys (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes they should. The article is not about some conspiracy theory; the article is about a tendency -- now seen in several countries, including Russia and China -- to deploy brigades of people specifically to influence public opinion on behalf, but not admitting that, of the state. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide references that the term "red brigades" is commonly applied, in particular, to China. So far we don't see that this neologism was picked by someone else besides a narrow group. While I agree that the phenomenon may be widespread, in states of certain political structure, but we don't see yet references to analytical texts which discuss the topic worldwide. - 7 bubyon >t 16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversal to old versions of text

Please stop reverting to obsolete versions of the article. If you want to add new material, please do so. Otherwise it is impossible to keep track the connsensus. Mukadderat (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a revert, but a new version. Please explain what exactly should be removed and why, then let's build a consensus and vote.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC). In the previous section we debate relevance of Chinese teams. Please join the discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And yes, I just added new material.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed many times: the term is a neologism and valid references apply it only to russian context. Also, even in russian context you cannot arbitrarily use this term whenever you like: the term is not mainstream ad there is no established pattern of usage beyound a small group of inventors of the term and its critics. Therefore your restoration of old intro and old pieces deleted many times is inadmissible. Please add you new content, and as for restoration of the deleted text, please don't do this without discussion. Please don't mix and match your new text and the controversial pieces. Mukadderat (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I specifically created internet police article to list various interventions of secret services into internet, where the china text belongs. Mukadderat (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Yes, I agree, consensus may chage, but you must prove somethintg with reliable source: consensus is not just "I like it": it must be created basing on wikipedia rules about content: wikipedia:verifiablity. Mukadderat (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
But everything was sourced. How about this: I include all materials about Russian web brigades first, and we start from there?Biophys (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Not everything was sourced. Chinese are not caled "internet brigades". "Anastasya" is not internet brigades. Polish internet are not called web brigades anywhere. And so on. We are going in circles here. Please youse only references that use term "internet brigades". Otherwise it is original research. Mukadderat (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything Mukadderat said above. Biophys, please stop reverting back to older versions at every possible excuse. Offliner (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that Biophys has his preferred text as he wants displayed. Multiple editors over an extended period of time have taken issue with his preferred text, and rightly so. The article is culled to only include information which isn't synthesis and the like, and it stays stable for some time. After a while, Biophys will revert it all, back to his original preferred text, and again tries to claim that consensus can change. Of course, consensus can change, but the way that Biophys does it is not quite on. --Russavia Dialogue 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren's edits

Digwuren, would you be able to explain this edit. Do that again, and I will ask for intervention for being disruptive and for editing to prove a drongoistic point. --Russavia Dialogue 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit, taken in combination with the obvious correction that follows, is obviously an addition of a relevant fact to an article discussing this concept. Furthermore, it is both reliably documented and fully sourced to its origin.
What is your point? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
After following the urbandictionary link, it seems you intended to insult me. Please don't do that, it's against this policy. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The urbandictionary link was done to show that the point you were making with the edit is a stupid one. I didn't call you a drongo, I called the edit drongoistic. If you see that as an insult, then perhaps you should be mindful of your edits, for you have been on WP for long enough to know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. --Russavia Dialogue 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are uncivil. Martintg (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. If a person sees something as an insult, then it is insult. Period. And since there are noninsulting synonyms applicable in this context for the word in question, your choice of words speaks for your intention. It it was not your intention, then an apology and clarifications are in order. If you don't believe that the word "stupid" as applied to anything related to a person is an insult, then please be advised that many others believe otherwise. - 7 bubyon >t 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Take it further then, because the edit was an idiotic one done to prove a point. Be very, very mindful of this, because if you are claiming that it is, then we can easily include opinions of individual editors as to the origins of what was behind that Arbcom decision. --Russavia Dialogue 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't ignite a quarrel. - 7 bubyon >t 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Refactored my comments. --Russavia Dialogue 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 7 bubyon, an apology is in order here. Martintg (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If Digwuren took offence at my calling his edit drongoistic, then I apologise. I will rephrase my comments here now, and succinctly. Given the amount of time that Digwuren has been on WP, he surely knows that WP is not a reliable source for information. Attempting to link accusations made by editors in an arbcom (and elsewhere) about other editors being members of web brigades, and the arbcom's "findings", to this conspiracy theory (possibly ostensibly to give this article more whatever) is a pointish thing to do. P.S. Drongo can mean fool, leading to drongoistic meaning foolish, and it was a foolish edit to make, but I'm not here to teach you the intricities of the Australian language. --Russavia Dialogue 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the opinion of Russavia, although expressed in nasty form: wikis are not valid source. Period. Unless they are personal pages of an expert in an issue. I see no valid references that Arbcom is a recognized expert in web brigades or KGB spies. - 7 bubyon >t 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To prove that Arbcom is not a reliable source, all one would have to do is this.....although I can't go into much detail, I can confirm that I am a member of the secretive Russian government team of internet agents. I've just made an admission, how reliable is that Arbcom decision now? --Russavia Dialogue 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That would prove nothing. Remember: "verifiability, not truth". Reliable sources often make wrong statements.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made the admission, surely that means that this admission could also be included in that section (which has rightly been removed)? Or is it a case that you don't believe my admission? ;) --Russavia Dialogue 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is simply the case of you making a "disruptive and potentially intimidating claim" as defined in this ArbCom decision, 6.2.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Biophys, what I have stated above is a clear-cut demonstration of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. If the Arbcom has made that finding, all it would take is what I have stated above. An admission by one of those people who has been basically accused of being a member of a government team is all it would take to throw the reliability of that Arbcom finding out the window. Therefore, if an Arbcom decision on WP can be used as a reliable source, then surely an admission on WP by one of those accused can also be used. Think about it. It would even have the side effect of turning this article from a fringe conspiracy theory into a verifiable fact, and I would have thought you would have jumped at such an opportunity. But of course, my "admission" above is a hypothetical to demonstrate why we can't use WP as a source, Arbcom decision or not. But now, I think we should stop talking in hypotheticals, and talk about realities. As you noted, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Involvement_by_security_organs states: "There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs." This finding was made as a result of accusations/insinuations that you yourself made against basically every editor who has questioned your editing. There was no remedy against you because, to paraphrase the arbcom members, you agreed not to do it again. Yet, you have decided to continue insinuating that other editors are indeed members of some creation of a paranoid hack. Here's the proof. So who is the one making a "disruptive and potentially intimidating claim", again? --Russavia Dialogue 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You are. I did not make the "disruptive and potentially intimidating claim" mentioned in ArbCom ruling. You did.Biophys (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this finding of arbcom is relevant here. I am rather surprised that editors who deny that "web brigades" exist want to remove a piece of evidence that should support their POV...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Arbcom/WP is not a reliable source as per WP:SELFPUB. It is a blatant violation of a key policy on WP. And one which Martintg has just gone against. --Russavia Dialogue 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Applicability of WP:SELFPUB. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem, because the wording says "found it to be a fact". Wikipedia ArbCom cases are not Royal Commissions, judicial inquiries, or proper scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. If the wording said that it was the opinion/decree of arbcom then it would be ok. Of course then there would still the notability issue and I don't find myself to be a notable, frankly. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Presence on Wikipedia

Mukadderat's reversal said "no one called this "web brigades".". I submit that this is irrelevant; it is clear that the finding of fact involves people claiming association with this concept -- even if some of them didn't use this particular term to refer to it. After all, the name of Internet is newer than what *is* the Internet, it's completely proper to cover (parts of) ARPANet in the article of Internet. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is clear" means your conclusion, i.e., original research, unless it is supported by references. Of course there are plenty of things which are "clear", indeed, in wikipedia, but common sense says that liberal usage of neologisms is not "clear", and by wikipedia rules, people have the right to demand citation. In wikipedia there is no rule about "clear". Wikipedia has the rule wikipedia:Verifiability, i.e., a citation may be readily provided on demand, even if some troll will request the citation for "Washington is the capital[citation needed] of the United States". As for ARPANET, it is establisted in reliable sources that it is related to internet. This is far from being so for "web brigades". - 7 bubyon >t 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
After reading peoples comments in the reliable sources noticeboard, here's what I personally think: an ArbCom ruling is not a reliable source, for the many reasons other people have presented. Despite of that, we could still use the ArbCom statement on this article, if there is a reliable third-party source which says that the statement is notable, and that it's relevant to Web brigades. Unless there is such a source, I object to including that statement here. Offliner (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Analogy

This term reminds me a situation with the wikipedia editing of article Islamophobia. It is also a neologism, and people have long been divided as to the applicability of the term. The discussions were heated despite the fact that the term was quite well established, by international bodies, press, politicians, observers, etc. Still, it took quite some time to agree on a definition and applicability, with periodic surges of heat. The case of web brigades is nothing close in its popularity and scope of use; I'd say it is close to none. While I agree that it is a neat, witty and fitting one, wikipedia is not a place for its promotion. Until the term picks up by itself among a wide variety of writers, wikipedians cannot use it as a label by themselves, however evident the reasoning may be. Wikipedia had seen rise and fall various neologisms. Some of them were deleted, others were merged into the articles about their authors. Let us calm down and watch how the term lives in the external world. Mukadderat (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. Martintg (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some people may be confusing the definition of a term with the description of the underlaying phenomenon. The term "Web brigade" may be a neologism, but it is an instance of the phenomenon of the internet police. Note that the Dutch call their team "Internet brigade", what is the difference between the web and the internet? This dispute is evidence for the need to merge this article into the internet police article, because as it stands this division into two articles is causing confusion. Martintg (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, an independent 3rd-party translation of the Polyanskaya article (by someone from web site La Russophobe) translated them as "Internet brigades". This is proper English translation. Merging with internet police seems to be questionable. Actually this is "secret internet police", not simply "police", because these people pretend to be ordinary blogers.Biophys (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well then both the Russians and Dutch call these teams "Internet brigades", and both Russian and Dutch teams are covert, i.e. secret, therefore I don't see why we should have separate articles. Perhaps the merged article could be called either Secret internet police or Covert internet police, then we can describe the phenomenon without arguments over neologisms and include other national teams like the Chinese. Martintg (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Internet police is a real concept. Something that is quite surprisingly missing from the internet police article is probably the most high profile use of policing on the internet; that being worldwide stings on paedophiles and those distributing child pornography. For example, Australia has the Australian High Tech Crime Centre which is part of the Australian Federal Police. Most countries have such police units these days; including Russia, which I can't remember which federal agency is responsible for this. These "web brigades" are not internet police, but is a conspiracy theory promoted by a journalist, which claims that Russian FSB (Ministry of Foreign Affairs if you listen to User:Muscovite99) actively manipulate Runet. It has nothing to do with crime-fighting by any stretch of the imagination; therefore I would strongly oppose including this conspiracy theory into any other article as an affront to give the conspiracy theory credence. --Russavia Dialogue 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a large article with clearly defined sobject. - 7 bubyon >t 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Web brigades are completely different phenomenon. Separate article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.247.191 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Absurdity. Web brigades are not any kind of police.--Matrek (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

An almost identical article

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. Martintg (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems that Biophys has created an article almost identical to this one: Internet operations by Russian secret police. My proposal: merge Web brigades with that article into an article called "Allegations of internet operations by Russian secret service." (a much better name than either of those.) Offliner (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 1) over 50% of the material in Internet operations by Russian secret police seems to be the same as in Web brigades (plus some material, which was removed/changed by editors on the Web brigades article)
  • 2) the subject of Web brigades is definitely a subset of "Internet operations by Russian secret police"
  • 3) the creation of "Internet operations by Russian secret police" can be seen as an attempt to revert changes made by editors on the Web brigades article and restore an older version of the text. An example from "Internet operations by Russian secret police": "The appearance of Russian state security teams in RuNet was first described in 2003 by journalist Anna Polyanskaya [5]" - the editors of "Web brigades" have made it clear, that no source supports the inclusion of the word first in that sentence, and the word was removed from the "Web brigades" article text. In the new article, this word has been reinsterted by Biophys. Offliner (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Something like this new article was suggested long time ago, during the argumenting that while the phenomenon may be notable, "web brigades" is a neologism and cannot be applied to the phenomenon. The items listed by Offliner are the issue of cleanup. Also the proportion of "web brigades" in the new article must be decreased to the level of brief summary, per Wikipedia:Summary style. However I am renaming the new article into "[[Alleged ..." because almost all is speculation with no definite rpoofs. - 7-bubёn >t 23:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am glad that the major dispute with this article was resolved by splitting general issue from particular conspiracy theory. Laudak (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This split was suggested long tame ago: one page for a specific conspiracy theory, another one for general topic Laudak (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Russian opposition web brigades

A member of the one of the opposition movements has come clean and admitted that she was paid to spread anti-Kremlin disinformation on various websites and forums. Her story has been picked up here. She is quoted here as saying that the protests in Vladivostok were not spontaneous; here she is mentioned in Novaya Gazeta; here she is listed as a supporter of Trepashkin; and here of Kasparov; and here of Khodorkovsky; her livejournal blog was voted 10th best political blog in December last year; and even the KPRF have mentioned her. Her name on internet gives a lot of interesting hits on how those in the so-called opposition operate; and the funny thing is, it is exactly what these so-called web brigades are accused of doing. Except, I think in this instance, we have someone going on the record as belonging to a web brigade. Of course this will be added to the article, because it will be the only case of someone admitting they are a member of a brigade, and for those who can't read Russian, here's her story in English: part 1 and part 2. --Russavia Dialogue 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've seen a journalist (I think it was EPL's Russian correspondent) explaining that in Russia, political demonstrations of all parties are usually full of people paid to demonstrate. And when a party wants to ridicule the opposition party, it'll pay a hundred or so homeless drunkards to show up at their demonstration. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"KGB" blogger group

Interesting Daily Mail article about Maria Sergeyeva. The passage relevant to this article is:

According to her internet postings, one of her current assignments is to promote training sessions for loyalist bloggers-under the acronym KGB. Kursy Gosudarstvennykh Bloggerov stands for Courses For State Bloggers, and its purpose appears to be to teach loyal cyber-warriors how to hack into opposition blogs and find the addresses and telephone numbers of those behind them - all apparently sponsored by the Russian taxpayer.

In return, the loyal bloggers are given a membership card, Putin's book on ideology, a CD of Medvedev's video blog and their own badges and uniforms.

Esn (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That information certainly belongs on the Young Guard article, it doesn't belong on this article, as their reason for being is defined (and confirmed), unlike the subject of this article. Frankly, I'd like this article turned into something like Internet activism in Russia, rather than it hanging on the fringe view of a single journo. --Russavia Dialogue 08:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Note also the Moscow-based "School of bloggers", led by Grigory Pasko and funded by the State Department of the U.S. [1] [2] (http://www.molgvardia.ru/marginal/2009/02/25/4695) [3] By the way, any idea Daily Mail didn't mention it? Free press in action? ellol (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Golubitsky's view

I've added two quotes of this journalists quotes -- please, help me with the translation quality. Here's the original text [4]:

Признаюсь, после ознакомления с результатами голосования "Имя Россия" и докладом "Независимой Ассоциации Покупателей" я испытал чувство параноидальной тревоги. Чувство, знакомое всякому, кто, пролистав "Популярный медицинский справочник", тут же обнаруживает у себя большую часть неизлечимых заболеваний, чьи симптомы точь-в-точь совпадают с вашим физическим состоянием. Так, если судить по пунктам "магистральной пропаганды" и списку "главных врагов", старый голубятник однозначно должен состоять на службе в ФСБ и влиться в сплоченные ряды "Команды "Г". Однако ж не состоит - вот в чем беда! Как не состоит в "Команде "Г" и подавляющее большинство моих друзей - писателей, художников, режиссеров, журналистов, врачей (той самой интеллигенции, к которой, по определению НАП, мы все должны испытывать лютую ненависть - выходит, ненавидеть самих себя...), хотя и полностью разделяют мое мировоззрение.
Рыщет ли на просторах Рунета "Команда "Г"? Вполне вероятно. Да что там - наверняка рыщет, отчего бы ей не рыскать? Точно так же, как рыщет и "Команда "Ё" из противоположного лагеря, которую представляет анонимная "Независимая Ассоциация Покупателей"1, честно отрабатывая заданную повестку дня и оприходуя выделенные фонды. Только такое отношение эти "команды" имеют к реальной жизни?! Ровным счетом никакого. Обе они - на работе, а мы, рядовые обитатели Рунета, здесь живем.

ellol (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I let these quotes alone, but, the results of "Name of Russia" mentioned in the first hint to a profound and appropriate idea. This results are notorious because the contest's organizers on the state TV (which is known as propaganda machine under Putin authoritarian state, the friends of Politkovskaya have told you) were shocked by the population's sympathy -- Stalin has received unattainable scores. The democratic antitotalitarian, antistalin, anticommunist brainwashing lasting for almost 20 years revealed a complete disaster! You may think that this is not a disaster but is a Putin's propaganda. Because Putin wants to be another dictator and restore KGB, he pursues the invocation of Stalin. Nevertheless, the opposite was done: the senior editors rebuked the nation for a bad choice and replaced it (people joked: "The 'name of Stalin' is Alexander Nevski now:)"). The criminal democrats running the channel dishonoured the nation's indisputable favorite one more time. The affair reveals that the authoritarian government lets the democratic intellectuals to run the major state media and pursue their criminal anti-totalitarian and anti-communist agenda. This is the general population who appreciates totalitarism, communism while hates the democratic ideas, deeds and is willing to execute the democrates. So in reality, the true keepes of the state owners' interests are our mercenary intellectuals and what they call 'web brigades' is the true vox populi. The voice suddenly became loud, which is inconvenient, and they try to turn it against people also. It is not surprising however that the intellectuals are in opposition to the interests of society, the public, since the capitalist states are owned by burgeose. The liberalism, democracy and protestantism appeared exactly to apology the burgeose and CIA is the "Capital's Invisible Army" after all. It is also not surprising that there is more hatred towards pro-american, anti-russian, pro-oligarchic Politkovskaya's friends than to more autoritarian pro-state Putin. --Javalenok (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Marian Kaluski

The situation is about so (who is interested can follow). In 2005, Marian Kaluski wrote an article about Ukraine-Poland relationships, where he made some rather unpleasant comments regarding the Ukraine. This article was published on several resources, including the forum of Tygodnik Powszechny.

It's still there: [5]

Then, there's a famous Russian web-site Inosmi.Ru, which searches for international articles considering Russia or whatever feels interesting, and translates that into Russian.

InoSmi translated Kaluski's article, and mistakingly wrote that it was published by the Tygodnik Powszechny. While actually it only appeared at the forum of the Tygodnik.

Then, Ukrainean people read that article, and some of them had connections with the Tygodnik. They started to dial that newspaper and wonder what the hell is going on?

While the staff of the Tygodnik was learning what the hell happened, their server got down.

So after that they wrote a great article about the Russian KGB agents who disseminate anti-Ukraine information at the polish forums, and violate the normal work of informational networks.

Then, the author of the original article, Marian Kaluski, got infuriated. He considered himself a Polish patriot, just he had tough views about the Ukraine. But obviously, he didn't consider himself a KGB agent up to the moment.

He wrote an open letter to the Tygodnik. That letter was also translated by the staff of InoSmi into Russian.

The three documents -- 1) The original article of Kaluski (and its Russian translation), 2) Article of outrageous Tygodnik staff, 3) Open letter of outrageous Kaluski [6],

allow to determine the situation more or less clearly.

It's improper to feed readers with the deliberate desinformation, while there are documents at hand which clarify the situation. Besides, I think it's wrong to use the Wikipedia resource to blame Marian Kaluski a KGB agent! Wikipedia is not for making veiled personal assaults!

ellol (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


I don't understand at all, why this controversy has to be viewed here. I would vote for its removal. But if it has to stay here (I wonder, why, though) both sides of this controversy must be viewed. ellol (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

All this has noi relation to the scope of the article, which is about a barely notable neologism. The references cited do not use the term "web brigades", and hence the description of the incident in this wikipedia article is inadmissible original research, since conclusions are made not present in the sources. Laudak (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus,

From Tygodnik:

"An author was Marian Kaluski. A headline sounded like a challenge: “Let’s speak out about the Ukraine”. ... Obviously, somebody has submitted the article, but as a comment on an internet forum administered by ‘Onet.pl’ (‘Tygodnik’ has been associated with that site for quite some time). However, it is obvious that forum contributors’ comments published beneath such articles are not associated with the newspaper from which an article originates."

From Kaluski's Open Letter:

"Even if it [my article] isn't liked by editor offices of 'Gazetа Wyborczа' and 'Tygodnik Powszechny', as well as all those who adheres to the "only true point of view", it's first of all their trouble and not mine!"

The events are surely connected other than purely chronologically. Whatever your (or my) views, Wikipedia is not a place to display one's patriotism. ellol (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The events are irrelevant to this article. Kaluski criticizes the criticism of his article, and does not discuss the web brigades. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What does Kaluski criticize? Criticism of his article. What is the criticism of his article? Allegation that the whole story was a secret action of the web brigades. Ergo: Kaluski's statement is criticism of the allegation that the whole story was a secret action of the web brigades. ellol (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Which part of his criticism confirms your speculation that "What is the criticism of his article? Allegation that the whole story was a secret action of the web brigades."? Also, how reliable is the original source of his "open letter"? Can we even find the Polish original? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piotrus. For example, you can see a criticising article by Kaluski here: [7]. It was published at WirtualnaPolonia, then removed, but it can be accessed through Web Archive. My command of Polish is very poor. Yet I understand the major points -- 1) he confirms his authorship, 2) he reaffirms his right to make the point he did, 3) he criticises the unfair in his opinion media campaign. May be this is a shortened version of his originally broader article? It's up to you to learn. For this article, that source is enough, IMHO. ellol (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That link is broken... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Marian Kałuski: List do Radia ZET 2005-03-21 (11:16) Wirtualna Polonia


Marian Kałuski
Melbourne, Australia
19.3.2005

Radio ZET sp. z o.o.
ul. Żurawia 8
00-503 Warszawa

List otwarty do Radia ZET

Szanowni Państwo,

Nazywam się Marian Kałuski. Mój biogram można znaleźć np. na Wirtualnej Polonii pod adresem: http://www.wirtualnapolonia.com/teksty.asp?TekstID=6760. W tym miejscu przypomnę tylko, że jestem autorem kilku książek oraz ok. 1000 artykułów, publikowanych zarówno w kraju, jak i za granicą..

Jestem autorem artykułu pt. „Porozmawiajmy szczerze o Ukrainie czyli o nową politykę polską wobec Ukrainy”, który został wydrukowany w ukazującym się w Kanadzie tygodniku „Goniec” w numerach z 4 i 11 lutego 2005 roku oraz został zamieszczony jako artykuł na portalach: „Wirtualna Polonia” 28 stycznia 2005, „nowa@on-line” luty 2005, „prawica.net” 9 lutego 2005 oraz na forach „Gazety Wyborczej” 27 stycznia 2005 (wywołując już wówczas dyskusję; ten sam tekst zamieścił ponownie w „Gazecie Wyborczej” w forum po tekście „Rosyjska prowokacja w internecie” jeden z internautów - „zazulinka” 18.3.2005), „onet.pl” 28 stycznia 2005 i „Tygodnik Powszechny” 28 stycznia 2005 pod tytułem „Prawda o Ukrainie i Polsce”. - To tyle co ja wiem na ten temat.

Artykuł wysłałem również do polskiego Ministerstwa Spraw Zagranicznych - ministra i kilku departamentów, do wszystkich największych partii politycznych (wybranych polityków, nieraz kilku z jednaj partii; niektórzy potwierdzili odbiór artykułu) oraz do redakcji wybranych dzienników i gazet, m.in. „Gazety Wyborczej” i „Tygodnika Powszechnego”. Obie redakcje odpowiedziały, że nie są zainteresowane jego drukiem. Natomiast zainteresowanie artykułem okazał red. Krzysztof Gottesman - kierownik działu Opinie dziennika „Rzeczpospolita” (jego dwa listy do mnie z 26.1.2005), sugerując jednak jego skrócenie.

Nigdzie indziej nie wysyłałem artykułu, a tym bardziej do Rosjan i rosyjskich gazet czy portali.

Każdy Polak wie co to znaczy „fałszywa moneta” czy „fałszywy dokument” lub fałszywka. Chodzi o to, że dana moneta czy dokument jest „sfałszowany, sfabrykowany, nieprawdziwy, podrobiony” („Podręczny słownik języka polskiego” Warszawa 1958, s.59).
Tymczasem Państwo w swoim portalu „Radio ZET” w tekście „Rosyjska prowokacja?” (18.3.2005) napisali: „Fałszywy artykuł pochodzący rzekomo z „Tygodnika Powszechnego” znalazł się na rosyjskiej stronie internetowej”. Właśnie takie przedstawienie sprawy przez Państwo jest fałszem i obraża mnie jako aktora tego - wg Was - rzekomo fałszywego artykułu!

Poza tym krakowski reporter Radia ZET, Marcin Kubata, wprowadza - świadomie czy nieświadomie - w błąd słuchaczy Waszego radia mówiąc: „Na forum dyskusyjnym „Tygodnika Powszechnego” pojawił się obszerny tekst o tym jak to Polska próbuje zawładnąć słabą Ukrainą. Ktoś przeniósł słowa Mariana Kałuskiego do rosyjskiego portalu...”. Tymczasem w moim artykule nigdzie nie sugeruję, aby Polska zawładnęła Ukrainą! Opowiadam się za niepodległą Ukrainą. Jednak nie taką, która mogła by szkodzić Polsce i Polakom.

Takie przez Was przedstawianie sprawy jest właśnie dezinformacją i fałszywką mającą na celu ośmieszenie mnie w oczach słuchaczy i zasianie wrogości do mnie!

Żyję w państwie demokratycznym, w którym przestrzegana jest zasada wolności słowa. Mam, jako Polak, mieć prawo do takiego czy innego zdania na sprawę stosunków polsko-ukraińskich. I jak widać moje rozważania nie są głupie, gdyż głupich książek i artykułów nikt nie drukuje i na pewno nie tłumaczy. Tymczasem mój tekst już trzeci dzień jest „na tapecie” w polskich, rosyjskich i ukraińskich mediach („Gazeta Wyborcza” pisze o mnie i sprawie na pierwszej stronie i robi z tekstu sztandarowy artykuł) i sprawa zapewne tak szybko nie ucichnie. A jeśli się on nie podoba redakcjom „Tygodnika Powszechnego” i „Gazety Wyborczej” oraz wszystkim innym „mającym jedynie słuszną rację” to ich problem - nie mój!

Jeden z internatów „Gazety Wyborczej” zrobił jakże słuszną uwagę: „Artykuł wcale nie najgłupszy. Zwraca uwagę na to, co wszyscy starają się nie zauważać” (naf-naf, 18.3.2005), a z „Wirtualnej Polonii” inny internauta dodaje: „Również uważam że w artykule napisana jest cała prawda, co jest rzadkością w dzisiejszych polskich mediach” (logika, 18.3.2005). I ta uwaga spośród tych internautów, którzy czytają i słyszą ataki na Kałuskiego i Rosjan, ale nie wiedzą - przez manipulację mediów polskich - o co właściwie chodzi: „Gdzie to (artykuł Kałuskiego) można przeczytać, czy może kto wie? Jakoś brzydzę się publicystyką, która atakuje tekst nie dając możliwości jego przeczytania. To już przebrnęliśmy...” (wlk, „onet.pl” 18.3.2005).

Rosjanie źle zrobili przez dokonanie skrótów w moim artykule (wyrzucono wszystko to co im się nie podobało) i przez niewłaściwe podanie źródła informacji (nie dotyczy to wszystkich portali). Natomiast szereg polskich mediów postępuje również nieuczciwie tak wobec mnie, treści artykułu i w ogóle całej tej sprawy. Widzimy brutalną „polityczną poprawność” w akcji.

Redakcja „Tygodnika Powszechnego” ma najmniejsze prawo być oburzona na Rosjan. Sama postępuje podobnie! W ukazującym się w Australii piśmie polskim „Polski Kurier” z grudnia 1999-stycznia 2000 r. ukazał się mój (podpisany moim imieniem i nazwiskiem!) list do redakcji pt. „Pomnik Jankiela”. List ten przedrukowała redakcja „Tygodnika Powszechnego” w numerze 27 z 2 lipca 2000 r. i podpisała go „Marian Brzeziński”. Dwa razy pisałem w tej sprawie do red. ks. Bonieckiego (mam listy) i ani mi nie odpisał, ani nie przeprosił za „pomyłkę”. Czy tak postępuje poważne pismo i ksiądz katolicki?!

Mam prawo spodziewać się zamieszczenia tego listu na Waszej stronie internetowej i przeprosin od redakcji „Radia ZET”. Mam nadzieję, że sprawę tę załatwimy polubownie.

Marian Kałuski

ellol (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My main problem with this letter is the lack of reliable sources stating it was indeed written by Kaluski. Anybody can post something on a forum and sign with their name. Considering the article is about spies allegedly posting on forums and such, I think we need a source that is somewhat more reliable then a forum post. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article was published at (one of the sources) at Wirtualna Polonia. That's not a political forum, but instead, it jest informacyjnym portalem internetowym. The link I provided is the article archived by Web Archive. It was accessible from that URL from March to September 2005. ellol (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Wirtualna Polonia, or "informacyjny portal interntetowy" is a "internet information portal" or, in another words, a forum (political or otherwise). This is why it is no longer accessible - just like with blogs, and such (and even Wikipedia talk pages), old comments by random users get archived or removed. This is not by any means a reliable source. It's an internet forum.radek (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
wirtualnapolonia.com/about/
It's a serious resource. It accepts profound journalist investigations, and even scientific works in Polish. All texts pass premoderation (outstanding brutalism is not admitted). The resource claims the copyright on all texts that it published.
That's not what's usually considered a forum. ellol (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


The section about Tygodnik Powczesny is verbatim present in another article: Internet operations by Russian secret police. No reason to repeat it here, especially since it has no usage of the term "web brigades" or any synonym. Therefore its inclusion would be WP:SYNTH. Laudak (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


I agree this doesn't need to be repeated in two articles, see my merge proposal below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree that this section should be removed as WP:SYNTH, because it does not mention "web brigades." Offliner (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge. again

I'd like to propose, once again, to merge this article with Internet operations by Russian secret police. To put it plainly, I don't see what's the difference between discussion web brigades and their operation, particularly as the presumably main article (this one on web brigades) in fact has no info on their structure, just on their alleged operational history - which is the same subject covered in the other ones. Some sections even overlap completely (ex. the Polish section) and the size of both articles makes it easy to merge them. I am not sure which is the better title, although I think that the descriptive title "Internet operations by Russian secret police" is better. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't think "web brigades" is notable enough to have its own article. I don't like Internet operations by Russian secret police, because it has WP:SYNTH issues and a bad name, but we can discuss those problems after the merge. Offliner (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Support cancelled. The initial situation was created artificially, to bypass edit block on Web brigades. Since that, no significant success was obtained with any of the articles, making it exceptional. But now I see the concept of "Web brigades" may be redefined, including now also the liberal web brigades -- per Korchevnaya's source. ellol (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily (and this is an argument against merging), because some of them are dispatched not by the FSB, but by other departments of Russian state, according to Soldatov.This article is about Russian "50 Cent Party". In China, such brigades are dispatched by Ministry of Culture (subordinated to Communist Party, of course). This article might be merged with 50 Cent Party, but this is questionable because there are such clearly different terms ("web brigades" in Russia and "50 Cent Party" in China) for defining the same.Biophys (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • support - There is no reason to introduce this neologism separately. The claim of the colleague Biophys that the term is widely known has two issues: (1) it is not confirmed by citing of sources (2) wide usage cannot be the sole reason of a separate page, if it describes basically the same concept as another page. We already see a good deal oc content forking here. Mukadderat (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Support merging. There is overlap condition which you can see in WP:Merging. Very little is known about those WBrigs, even their very name is unclear or their location - nothing. But, o yeah, with all their secrecy everybody /infact only "right peoples"/ can see them running around and doing their dark buisiness. Thats for the subject itself. And with all this controversy in mind - their "Alegged operations" are even more of a myst. Nothing is proved, there are only speculations. Half are of kindergarden level like "On this web site a group of uknown peoples, that called themselfes a senior GRU officers revealed bloodchilling evidences about JFK's murder" - yeah, very trustworthy. So if you wright article about fog - then there is no need to make separate article about how it flys when wind blows.
If article about "Alegged operations" was well structured, long, well sourced, lists hard and realable evidences, had some analyze parts like /"Operation during Yeltsyn", or "Operation during Putin" or some reference to scholar research/ then it would deserve it's own article - as it don't have ANY of this - it should be merged.
For example see such operation lists from CIA article it is just a few for example - there are much more of them: CIA activities in Africa, CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific, CIA activities in Russia and Europe, CIA activities in the Americas, CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia, CIA transnational activities in counterproliferation, CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities, CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities, CIA transnational health and economic activities, CIA transnational human rights actions. And please pay attention - no need to add word "alegged" in every sentence.--Oleg Str (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
A remark as for term redefining - the term "Web brigades" is coined by certain journalist. And that journalist put her own special meaning into that term. And she didn't list "50 cent" or "CIA" or any other known secret organisation as "web brigades". So /as far as I understand it/ accordingly to the article "web brigades" are not just any such internet-team, but only those that are connected to FSB. This is why they can't be merged with 50 cents, for example. If liberals will create their internet squads, then article about them will be called "Liberal web brigades" or smth. I am not sure that we, as Wiki editors, have can expand the definition of the term just by ourselfs.--Oleg Str (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the main question here is whether the two articles should be merged or not. Not the name of the final article. A better title of the merged article could be discussed afterwards. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Alledged "liberals" WB information would not probably be included then, so the answer is no. Both articles may exist as they illustrate the different articles describing their authors' fringe theories. To my opinion, both articles may be deleted, as their subjects really lack significance, judging by the articles' present form, and the sources quantity (4-5 sites per 100kb article), and quality (minor, unknown, online, strongly biased, not modern).FeelSunny (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly ...

... is wrong with that section. It's well sourced, it's obviously relevant - this appears to be another "IDON'TLIKE IT" removal.radek (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that's wrong is that this is the same section in two different articles. So it takes multiple effort of the editors to deal with it. If it was a single article, the very issue won't ever arise. Please, leave your view on the merge proposal. ellol (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Since there is no proof the alleged Tygodnik Powszechny attack originated with the official if secret Russian institutions, I think it should remain here - and be removed from the other article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In other words, there is no proof it is related to web brigades, which are allegedly linked to Russian secret police, per our article. Mukadderat (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is sourced yes, but "obviously relevant" is obviously your opinion: nowhere the section draws link to the discussed term. Using this section as a support for the neologism is and obvious (-:) original research of WP:SYNTH type. Mukadderat (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all about nothing.

A few questions. 1. This (internet brigades) is not a term at all. First it was Internet brigades, then it was Web brigades, later it's Squad G, tomorrow it will be Gruppa Zyu - so those journalists themselfs don't no what they are talking about. 2. "Internet brigades" are not squads, teams or smth but rather an idea of that one author based on their imagination and "detective" skills. Keeping in mind lack of the real, hard evidences - those skills are pretty poor. 3. The concept as it is published here is not credible. I bet they cant tell if the one is supporting Putin by his own political beliefs, or because he is a member of certain political party or because he is a member of such squad.

So this is not a term, but two journalists own idea. Is it enough for article?--Oleg Str (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now it became a popular myth that's often discussed in Russian media.
Korchevnaya's evidence is important in the other way -- as the methods ascribed to "web brigades" were reported to be successfully used by their "opponents". Besides, Korchevnaya's evidence raised a wave of media reaction. A couple of such sources from the more traditional media than blogs are used in the corresponsing section of this article. ellol (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that if this whant to exist,then it should VERY clearly say that it is a MYTH. IMO it's pretty far from saying so. For example there was alooootsa time, before statement that it is a "Conspiracy theory" was put in it.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oleg, I agree. ellol (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Article changes.

1. I removed link to "Internet operations by Russian secret police ". There is NO SUCH ARTICLE. Repost it correctly if you wish.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm going to put a "biased" tag on this article. Any objection, please.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oleg, I have no objections. ellol (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tatyana Korchevnaya's evidence

It's actually a very interesting topic. The first evidence of existence of liberal brigades that are acting against the state. My view is that it would be natural to see the both topics in a single article.

What are your proposals anyway of where that evidence can be better used if it's not suitable for this article? May be, the topic of liberal internet brigades is worth of a separate Wikipedia entry? Any ideas? ellol (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: I agree. Korchevnaya is a good source as she was a prominent activist (public figure) and her accusations have been made publicly here - and furthermore, there is an English translation at Tatyana Korchevnaya LJ post of Feb 24, 2009. (full disclosure: translation is mine, but surely it can be verified by an independent third party to coincide with the original to make it eligible to be included in Wikipedia?). SublimeWik (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Web Brigade Theory

I think there's a whole theory out there that no one even mentioned. The fact that Putin improved the lives of average Russians is undeniable. A GDP per capita chart will show my point: http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html In 1999, when Putin took power Russia's GDP per capita was $6,300. By 2008, when Putin left office, Russia's GDP per capita was $16,000. If one takes into account the income distribution, that also became more just under Putin, the quality of life of the average Russian improved tremendously, some of the optimists even say that it quadrupled. Russia's Army was reformed, and actually scored a victory, after the First Chechen War. The growth of Sport and Culture occurred. NHL stars were reintroduced. All of this caused a huge resurgence of Patriotism in Russia. In the 2004 Presidential Election, which one could argue was the first real election in Russia, 68,925,000 voted! Most knew that Putin was going to win, why show up and vote, unless they supported Putin? Berezovski's clique repeatedly called for a boycott of the elections. In 2008, 73,700,000 voted, albeit a million votes were nullified. Again it was blatantly obvious that Medvedev was going to win. Russia has a population of 142 million, but roughly 27 million are below the age of 18 (voting age). That leaves 115 million in the general populace, not all of whom are registered to vote. How can an unpopular government have millions voting to support it, have over 60% of the people over 18 vote to keep it? Some ballots can certainly be faked, but over 20 million? Out of 73.7 million?

Additionally Russians are talented computer-wise. The most powerful group of hackers are Russian Hackers. However, in order to have such quality hackership, there must be a lot of ordinary users too, from whom the talent originates. The bigger the pool, the greater the talent. That means that quite a few of Russian Youths are online. Russian Youths who are loyal to Putin, via his actions, and who are experiencing a resurgence of Patriotism. How do you think they'll act online? Why do we see a Conspiracy Theory everywhere?

We have bullshit like this in the US too, where some idiots "found links" between Bush and bin Laden and bullshitted that 9/11 was a government cover-up. Bullshit. If it was a government cover-up, there would be instant links to Hussein. Are conspiracies that much fun that we have to invent them everywhere? And considering how much of this crap is Berezovski driven, who said that he'll do anything to start an anti-Putin Revolution, possibly including inventing a conspiracy....

On the one hand we have a resurgence of Patriotism, an increase in the standard of living, even the cynics admit that it was doubled, and Russian Youths spending lots of time online. On the other we have an unpopular coup-driven leader yelling conspiracy through his henchmen.

Now watch as someone blanks this and calls me a Russian Spy. Or they might not, since I wrote these two sentences.

But HW, how did you get here? Checked FeelSunny's Contributions, found this page, wrote this text. Preguntas? If not, then I have one of my own: why isn't the basic argument that I just made, presented in the article? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Also:

On this day in 2007, OMNI published a piece regarding suspicious edits made to certain articles on Wikipedia. As this writer was researching his next piece on the Lockerbie bombing, he noticed that some information regarding a Palestinian terror group had been erased. Upon closer inspection, I came to the conclusion that intelligence agencies were editing sensitive information on Wikipedia.

Oooooh. Mysterious. Not a single IP number mentioned. Not a single username mentioned. He doesn't tell us how he came to the conclusion. He doesn't even show the other side, that a random IP could've done it. Nope, his sentence was deleted, clearly this is the job of an intel agency. (That was sarcasm.) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not deleted, erased:)) it was a Zorro-like admin with a big eraser. Clearly a Putin's man, what do you think?:) This whole thing is laughable. However, we've seen an anti-Russian WB already.
The weakest point of those proponents of WB consp.theory is that internet is HUGE - and there are THOUSANDS of sites "infected" with "pro-Putin" comments. They do not even ask themselves how can that be a K dept of FSB can do this. Neither they ask why.
However, I've been on one Ukrainian site where the was a hohlosrach ongoing. What was interesting abt it, every IP was open. And there I could see there are at least 10-15 cities throughout Russia and Ukraine talking to each other in high tone. Not some SBU and FSB cabinets.
Overall, when Putin has 70+ support ratings in the country, every person with his/her mind larger than hazelnut understands most internet users in the country would be quite patriotic and pro-government.FeelSunny (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web_brigades/Archive_2&oldid=1137312295"