Talk:Russian web brigades

message: Per this edit, please bring a reliable source which says that the web brigade theory is a conspiracy theory. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even try to read past the second phrase of this article?Anonimu (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that one source is not enough to dismiss the theory as conspiracy. That is an opinion piece, and Gleb Pavlovsky is not a neutral source as he is adviser of a head of the president's administration . If there are other third party neutral reliable sources dismiss this theory, then it will be ok, but a partisan source like Pavlovsky is not enough. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: that's the old version,  and it quotes a lot of sources, only one of which claims this to be a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory 

message: Why is this here and not under its own article?  The WL currently redirects to a company page with less information than is here.  Will fork.  a13ean (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation earnest voice 

message: What happened to the Chinese web brigades that used to be mentioned in this article? This used to be an article about the phenomenon of state-sponsored internet astroturfing as a whole, but now there seems to be no article about this topic on Wikipedia. Why not? There's a huge difference between a sockpuppet made by someone just to troll and organized operations for propaganda purposes. The astroturfing article is pretty short and mostly talks about corporate examples.
Here's a recent article that purports to be someone who worked on a pro-Israel astroturfing campaign, by the way:   Is that something that can be included somewhere on Wikipedia? Esn (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this article is in a poor condition and needs a lot of improvements. But I am a little afraid that if I resume editing here, this might start a battleground or something.  But I can try and see what happens... My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Those are now mentioned at State-sponsored Internet sockpuppetry, while this article is about its Russian variant, which is dubbed "web brigades"--Elysans (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other examples

message: This section is meant to be a continuation of the last two sections, which were related topics.  I did a quick search of the web and our astroturfing article (and a more thorough reading of this article) and could not find any evidence that "web brigades" is used outside Wikipedia as a generic term for state-sponsored internet astroturfing; it appears to be used only to describe Russian state-sponsored astroturfing.  So I decided to be bold and split the content on Operation Earnest Voice to a new article.
In doing so, I also reorganized the Operation Earnest Voice article without adding or removing content with the following exceptions (I hope): I added links to the See also section, and added content to the leads of both articles identifying them as examples of astroturfing (they still need cleanup and work).
IMO, until "web brigades" (or Internet Water Armies, etc.) become accepted as the generic term for state-sponsored astroturfing, all these examples (including the Israeli example mentioned above) should be separate articles.  Also, each of these articles should mention astroturfing prominently in the lead, and mention the other examples in the See also section (or perhaps as a sentence in the article?).
This seemed the obvious thing to do to me.  I realize that these are controversial topics, so if consensus goes against me, I'm happy do undue my edits as necessary.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your edit and your comment above in general. "Operation Earnest Voice" obviously does not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so since the main point of contention was about the name, I've created an article with a neutral, descriptive name about all of these programs: State-sponsored internet sockpuppetry. Esn (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astroturfing, web brigades, Operation Earnest Voice, 50 Cent Party, Internet Water Army, etc. 

message: * Wynajęci Rosjanie cyber-bombardują polski internet? (04-03-2014) - Hired Russians cyber-bombing Polish internet? - don't know where to add it. pwjb (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Newsweek article 

message: i have removed the utterly unreferenced counter accusation against the us, uk, and china.   10 minutes of internet searching produced not a single even vaguely credible source that suggests that such brigades exist in the usa or the uk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreferenced 'tit for tat' rationalization removed 

message: According to  page 24.
::"web brigades”, or as they are known to some, the 30-Ruble Army
And here is an early article from 2011, using that name 30 ruble army. Are those one and the same? --Elysans (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative name? 

message: How is this article even allowed to eve exist other than some stub on conspiracy theories, or US cyber warfare tactics? This article itself is part of propaganda.
-G  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.204.153 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm dismantling this garbage and removing things that are only cited by advocacy groups. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX. This is ridiculous tabloid journalism and political slander. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Hell, entire article is a who's who of US propagandists 

message: About them...Nothing?--DieselEngineRO (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What US web brigades? Web is owned basically by US. Anything you have, from Google to Facebook, it's all controlled by them. No counting of course, US media and CIA props other western media:Fox,CNN, ABC, and many other. Look to their attitude when it's time to talk about Venezuela, as example. So if Russia got web brigades, then what about the 77th british Brigade? While US has divisions and even armies to its services, but the problem is so missrepresented that Russia is to blame. Here in english wikipedia the US point od view is simply over any other, but this is not seen as problem, of course.62.11.3.98 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  American web brigades 

message: Have started an examples section, as a useful subhead, and  as a redirect target for articles such as Walkaway (political movement).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Hi - I'm curious; does anybody have evidence supporting the theory that Russian web brigades are active in editing Wikipedia entries (especially the English-language versions) in an effort to nullify criticism of Russia or indeed divert it towards rival states? I've heard from some (non-official) sources this is a problem, but wondered if there's citeable evidence to support it? 148.64.28.93 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Periodically there are spikes of coordinated edits in articles on Russia, World War 2, annexation of Crimea, war in Donbass, MH17 etc where you can see the official Kremling propaganda bits being pushed. They aren't really persistent as existing Wikipedia review mechanisms effectively prevent such campaigns but I'm not aware of any quantitative analyses of this phenomenon. Cloud200 (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to investigate. I wouldn't be surprised. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  Well, I personally feel like parttaking in "hot" articles like Borscht or Gam-COVID-Vac, while procrastinating@work. On "coordinated" edits idea --- I read news on my homepage (Yandex's "Zen" browser has it); some news catch my attention ---> I hurry up to add some info... Uchyot (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web brigades on Wikipedia? 

message: Why is this listed as a conspiracy theory when multiple US intelligence agencies have confirmed it's veracity? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/us-cyber-command-russia.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/science/putin-russia-disinformation-health-coronavirus.htmlhttps://www.theverge.com/2019/2/26/18241600/us-cyber-command-russian-troll-farm-attack-election-day-2018
Seems there is bias in claiming something that the FBI and CIA say is real is a conspiracy theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs) 
: Because it has not been admitted by Russia. Here you see the importance of official statements in international law. A country can do whatever it pleases, but as long as officially it denies doing it, it will never be an official, recognized fact, and the country can not be hold to account for it. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hnnm, I don't think being admitted or not is a definition of a conspiracy theory. That a Katyn massacre was committed by the USSR was not a conspiracy theory before USSR admitted it ~1990. Likewise, I don't see the conspiracy theory category at Chinese cyberwarfare, List of CIA controversies or such. Ps. Anyway, this unreferenced claim was added by IP: . Edit by web brigades, lol. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a conspiracy theory because it singles out an entire country of people as being evil. Attacks on African Americans or jews people who suffered opression, genocide, and slavery is not ok this shouldn't be either.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the attack? Miezemaya (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this indeed a conspiracy theory 

message: Question. Why does the WalkAway campaign not redirect here? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is likely notable enough to deserve a stand alone article. If you think it is not, propose it for deletion (WP:AFD). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WalkAway 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :50 Kopecks Army and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MB 03:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "50 Kopecks Army" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Compare the tone of this article to that of Blackwater (company).
TBH, the problem isn't so much this article as it is Wikipedia's overall heavily slanted pro-America tone (despite our—and our mercs'—many war crimes in the last 2 decades). 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:44A0:9A27:561A:4B46 (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.. You have posted 2 comments anonymously and without meaning Miezemaya (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Washington Web Brigades 
Are there no online US trolls, bots or Whitehouse-bots putting out Govt sponsored Internet propaganda in Washington? 
Since there are no logical reasons to believe that Russia is the only nation carrying out Internet trolling, might not this article include something like the above section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.103 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Make a Wikipedia page with your heading etc with evidence you have gathered with links and verifyable source's etc MrHugepiles (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

text: You may want to read other sections of Wikipedia first if you are interested in US American war crimes. Greetings to Russia from Europe :) Miezemaya (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Washington web brigades'''  

message: While “Kremlin trolls are closely tied to the Internet Research Agency, a Saint Petersburg-based company run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is a close ally to Vladimir Putin and head of the mercenary Wagner Group, known for committing war crimes.” Was certainly true in the recent past the relations described between Putin and Prigozhin have changed significantly. Given the degradation in relations between the two would it be appropriate to change the “is” in this the sentence above to a “was”? FlamingCat (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update of relationship to reflect recent events