Talk:Internet Research Agency

Uncredited page history

This article appears to be substantially the same as the Ukrainian Wikipedia version's edition when it was created on April 30, 2015: [1]. — Brianhe (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Its written by very same people, from very same Ukraine. It also cites only Novaya Gazeta and Ukrainian media, which are controlled by same group. Also, its part of Wikipedia:Project Russia, but there is no such article in Russian Wikipedia. Guess, who is really trolling.77.11.38.141 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, I didn't realize The New York Times was Russian. — Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian. That would be true, if Mr. Chen would have controlled whole New York Times. (Un)fortunately, he is just an editor. 77.11.38.141 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay then. I didn't realize "Chen" was a common Ukrainian name. — Brianhe (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you check Chen's background, then I would bet $10 that he will be willing to change his name to an Ukrainian one, if the offer is good enough. None of his articles shines with, what you call, professional investigative journalism, but all with sensationalism. 77.11.38.141 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• This banter is going nowhere. Brianhe, if this is really from the Ukrainian wiki, please make a zero-edit and insert an edit summary saying so, or use Template:Translated page--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Brexit and general interference in the UK

Why no mention of Brexit and general divide and rule tactics in the United Kingdom to undermine public trust in British institutions? The IRAs involvement in Brexit and similar has been widely reported in mainstream media articles such as this one :

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/how-400-russia-run-fake-accounts-posted-bogus-brexit-tweets

English Wikipedia as a victim of Ukrainian propaganda

It is sad to see how in a time when most Russian sources ( if they are not the opposition ) in the English Wikipedia branded as " Russian propaganda " , moderators blind eye to propaganda agitation to supply Ukrainian activists ( who do not hide it up to open Russophobia , if you look page in their own section ) where almost any pro-russian comment is reduced to the promotion of some government agents. How sweet. Of course , I'd love to read what I am also an agent of the Kremlin , and a troll from Olgino , interfering with honest Ukrainian participants to write the truth (s) Solaire the knight (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your suggestion about the improvement of the article text? - üser:Altenmann >t 16:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well for starters do not make edits reverted in quiet without any arguments. I especially liked the return of pov "anti - western". And the rest of the article is too filled with primary research and gross violations of validity statement that the help it can no longer anything. I would even put the article on deletion of a propaganda , but that ucrainian users will not let me do it , full use of my poor knowledge of the language and Russian origin , which will immediately declare me almost the same trolls from Olgino . Solaire the knight (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim about "Ukrainian propaganda" is not very consistent with the fact that majority of the sources referenced by the article are from Russian not Ukrainian media: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. While you might raise an awkward argument that Russian media are Russophobic "fifth column" there's a simpler explanation: they're just critical of state-sponsored spreading of fakes and hatred. Cloud200 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What prevents the Ukrainian propaganda to use Russian opposition sources , especially if they support the idea that any pro-russian comment is part of the government conspiracy ? Not to mention the fact that such media as the " Novaya Gazeta " openly support Russian opponents in international conflicts. And about the " neutrality" of the authors well say your statements about "state-sponsored spreading of fakes and hatred". What kind of " neutrality ," then we can talk , if only the authors and are able to " ward off " opponents using political slogans ? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

that fact only shows that in Russia you have real freedom of speech, if there are so many sources with different points of view. But (there is alway "but" exist) who said that such selection of sources is really consistent with WP:WEIGHT? --Solaire the knight (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We are not talking about "any pro-Russian comments" here. We're talking about massive, coordinated campaigns where thousands of identical comments are inciting hatred or promoting specific fake news from RT or Zvezda. Connections of these campaigns with Olgino have been documented by many journalists as former workers of Internet Research Agency, so accussations of "Ukrainian propaganda" are simply false. Actually, taking into account the number of Russian journalists involved in these investigations you would be more accurate calling it "Russian propaganda" perhaps :) Cloud200 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

All that not contributin a dime into approving adequacy of the article text to WP:WEIGHT rule. Why all these "sources" are primary and belonging either to the opposition to the Russian goverment or foreign occupying a negative attitude to the russian actions. In addition , despite the fact that half of the au tells about ordinary soulless bots (which contradicts all subsequent cool story about the operating manuals and propaganda-workers, otherwise we will come to think that someone is paying a lot of people and it creates a strategy only to then leave the same type of mechanical bots comments) , author of the article makes far-reaching conclusions ,that all pro-russian comments are owned pro bots in principle , with reference to this part on those sources that were written in the years before the appearance of the term . And this is not to mention the fact that all of these " investigations" in the article served without any secondary sources like all obvious. To summarize ,I can see in the article neutral secondary sources rather than publicism and biased assurances of participants in the discussion page? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, you have to read WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. Cloud200 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you are , and for the second time refused to answer a direct question , trying to hide behind the links? And I am familiar with the rules , it is not the first year in the wiki . In fact, claims have anything to say except tirades about the " Russian government of lies " ? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You claimed the article is based on "Ukrainian propaganda". I gave you a sample of current sources from Russian media. Then you wrote that "all sources are primary". Which only proves you don't understand what "primary source" means. Have you read these sources actually? If not, please go and read, and then comment which statements from the article are not based on the sources or biased. I understand that you want the article to be objective but it's not achieved by deleting anything that is not offically confirmed by Russian government. Cloud200 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

" I told you that not only Ukrainian sources " - quickly you forget about how I told you about the bias of sources , and you answer only camouflage speech pronunciation of " lies with the Russian RT". That is , you continue to cling to a part of my claims , pretending not to understand what it was about trying to help the private refute common. More and trying to use this to translate arrows at me the same. So, I ask again - you have secondary non-pro-ucrainian (and non pro-russian) sourses and arguments on the subject ? As much as you try to cling to the particular, to ignore the main claim , as many times I repeat my question , which you ignore. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whose words you're citing but definitely not mine. Are you sure you are commenting on the right discussion? Cloud200 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your , your Solaire the knight (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S And I again remind you vain hope that you will be able to continue using such populism ignore the Wikipedia rules and powdering my brains demagogy about " Russian media " Solaire the knight (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

re: pov "anti-western" - it is not our pov. Sources describe Material Evidence as right-wing and anti-Western. Restored - üser:Altenmann >t 23:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see those sources ? If they certainly do not belong to the oppressed Ukrainian nationalists or the pro-ucrainian government stopfake .Solaire the knight (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read the entire discussion, and here's my compromise proposal:

"The company is also one of the main sponsors of the Material Evidence exhibition, regarded by some as anti-Western."

Do you all agree? UCaetano (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are there any sources which describe it otherwise, i.e., "neutral", "objective", pro-Western", etc? - üser:Altenmann >t 15:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that describe it without a qualifier, and as can be seen from this discussion, there is no consensus. Until we can find a vast majority of reliable sources supporting either view, I propose we use a more neutral wording. What do you think? UCaetano (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And don't think I'm dismissing the orientation of the exhibition, it is clearly so ridiculously pro-Russia that makes me laugh at how hard they try. But despite my personal opinion, I believe we can reach a compromise. UCaetano (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. It is pro-Russian. Does it attack USA and the West? Do sources actually argue that it attacks the West (i.e., not just call it "anti-Western")?. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Over rough demagogy I have not heard . So based on what sources you said that the organization is anti-Western , and for this war were revisions , at the same time removing the article from a template? Solaire the knight (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Some sources do, but I don't think we have enough at this point to claim there's a consensus on that. That's why I'm proposing saying "main sponsors of the Material Evidence exhibition, regarded by many as anti-Western". What do you think? UCaetano (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"by many" is WP:WEASEL. My point is that if there are arguments, not simply opinions. I.e., the text should be "... which is argued to be anti-Western [ref][ref]". - üser:Altenmann >t 16:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. @Solaire the knight— Are you ok with that wording? UCaetano (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources , I want to see the source . And that someone is there too much said about finding consensus and non- war edits , but keeps going around in circles , refusing to justify them as amendments to provoke a war . Besides all these disputes over the "pro - Western " does not explain why with him actively rubbed template " neutrality ." Solaire the knight (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The source is in the article. Given that, doe you agree with the change? Or should we keep the current status? UCaetano (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the sources? I do not see. When I asked them to give up , my opponent sharply and suddenly disappeared . Solaire the knight (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Go on the article and click on the link. And there are no opponents here. But as we're failing to reach a consensus, better keep the article as it is then. UCaetano (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If they are there , then you will not be difficult to bring them ? After all, if everything is there , why one party at my request is lost and the other begins to nervously excuses ? What's the problem? :) Solaire the knight (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And please stop adding in-line comments in the talk page. This isn't a forum. Remember that it is YOUR duty to convince other editors that your proposals are correct, which you're clearly failing to do. Keep it civil and stop with your personal attacks:

• "trying to hide behind the links?"
• "pretending not to understand what it was about"
• "using such populism ignore the Wikipedia rules and powdering my brains demagogy"
• "Over rough demagogy I have not heard"
• "turned to walk around and demagoguery"
• "if you're too shy , I repeat"

Seriously, STOP. You're being uncivil and disrespectful. If you can't convince other editors, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself. UCaetano (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And I look forward to all that the authors have directly pass to the person and start to translate the arrow , clinging to my words Solaire the knight (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not want to go into all the details, but stopfake is not a reliable source. It is essentially a blog platform which is clearly partisan. Can we replace sources to stopfake with references to really credible sources (ideally not of Russian and Ukrainian origin)?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually , all this discussion of my persistent requests for secondary and neutral sources . But participants either disappear into nowhere after direct questions about the credibility of the source , or begin to engage in casuistry . Solaire the knight (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight— I have no idea what you just said. @Ymblanter— I agree, that's why my proposal is "..Material Evidence, which is argued to be anti-Western [ref][ref]". We don't ABSOLUTELY need a POV-neutral reliable source, if we don't have one, we can still add the info with the appropriate disclaimers. Here and here are some additional sources. None of them are authoritative, but they express a wide position that should be taken in account. UCaetano (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"I have no idea what you just said" - I really like how you start selectively me "do not understand" when you need to give an answer about the presence of neutral sources. Can you give other sources other than the regular reprinting words Savchuk and rants about " exposing Putin lies on YouTube"? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight— No, I literally do not understand your phrases. And I'm not the only one. And as I've explained, we don't need neutral sources as per WP:Neutrality of sources: "On controversial topics, Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions.". So this is a moot point, please stop asking for neutral sources. UCaetano (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This does not mean that the article can now drag any source who writes about " Putin's lies" , or that any pro comment on the Internet belongs to the Kremlin's agents , because we were told about this some random woman from St. Petersburg . Not to mention the fact that no one has canceled attribution . And do not forget , I 'm still waiting for answers to questions posed by me Solaire the knight (talk) Solaire the knight (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the two sources is ideal, but at least they are non-partisan and are better than stopfake in this respect. However, I still do not quite see why we should say "anti-Western" and look for reliable sources whereas it is trivial to say smth like "intended to show alleged crimes of the USA" (like it is done in the lede of Material Evidence), and this statement, being factual, can be sourced even to Russian sources (it is being sourced to lifenews in the lede of the article about the exhibition). --Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This question is not as principled as the fact that , together with the text of the article , participants rubbed template " neutrality " Solaire the knight (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight— None of that is being done here, there are multiple sources arguing that the exhibition is anti-western pro-Russia propaganda. Those sources are indeed biased, but are relevant to the context, so they should be included with the appropriate disclaimers. What is your proposal? Seriously, you're the one proposing a change, so what are YOU proposing? UCaetano (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose to remove or at least substantially rewrite an original study based on primary investigations of journalist and anti-Russian sites. But apparently this is not possible , stroking a completely full concealment wars edits abuse flag and walking in a circle on this pag. In the Russian Wikipedia all would have already been suspended for foul play , and I'm including rudenessSolaire the knight (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do that and post it here in the talk page (NOT in the article), until you show us a proposal, there's nothing we can agree on and the article stays as it is. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to convince other editors. UCaetano (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I ask to answer my questions and not to engage in demagoguery level " your claims are not written in the wrong section , so they are not considered ". So , according to your rules of Wikipedia lies in the principle of " we'll get you kickbacks , and then you waste your time on pointless attempts to convince us on the talk page " ? Well, I do not. To convince me that the article is POV-neutral is the responsibility of other editors - my call is very simple - we are eliminating non-authoritative sources, if you can't find other reliable sources to approve that info at the article it would be deleted - exactly per rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here has to answer your questions. This isn't a forum. It is YOUR responsibility to propose a change and convince others. If you feel other editors (like me) are being disruptive, feel free to request admin intervention or mediation. Otherwise, either you propose a change and convince us, or the article stays as it is. Your call. UCaetano (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can notice - it wasn't a question, it was a statement of a fact. From now and on I'm staring to delete non reliable sources. --Solaire the knight (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, would you please stop moving my posts? I decide whom I reply to, and not you. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC) So what about my above proposal?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So I do not touch your posts , and left a replica that party that rolled back my edits Solaire the knight (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter— If it was changing the indenting, that was me, sadly Solaire the knight never idents his posts right, so the page turns into a mess. Anyway, here's a proposal: "main sponsors of the Material Evidence exhibition, intended to show alleged crimes of the USA, but argued to be Russian-backed propaganda". What do you think? UCaetano (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All that is financed by the Russian government or perhaps finances - Russian propaganda ? You then consider yourself a neutral party ? Solaire the knight (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is in principle fine with me, though as far as I am concerned we can only keep "main sponsors of the Material Evidence exhibition, intended to show alleged crimes of the USA" - whereas alleged crimes of the USA is in this context almost universally mean Russian propaganda, and understood by the readers, finding sources saying exactly this could be painful.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a few sources claiming that (here and here). They are not neutral, so we'd need some qualifiers on that (like "claimed to be" or "argued to be"). In this case there's a clear controversy, and we need to show both sides. UCaetano (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

While I was with " God " using article writing analysis sources , only I want to note that as long as the article is absent as such attribution . Until the writing of certain " objectives " trolls in a strange interview with the anonymous one of the sites Solaire the knight (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight— Sorry, I really can't understand what you are saying, could you please explain it in a different way? UCaetano (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I wrote this there are already dozens of times . This article is supplied whatever served as an established fact in spite of any level of argumentation or neutrality sources. Even when the source is given interviews with anonymous people without any direct evidence. In the meantime, I am preparing the analysis of sourses and very hope that after that the participants do not continue to violate the rules of war edits , removing the template Solaire the knight (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight— I'm sorry, are you using Google Translate? It is really hard to make sense of your phrases. @Ymblanter— Are you understanding? UCaetano (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

But this is like a frank trolling . Why did you Google translator does not interfere with understanding me in a thread before? Even to make a selection of phrases taken out of my remarks . However, it is no the first time you have a " deteriorating understanding " when it is necessary to give a direct answer to my post or provide any justification Solaire the knight (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, your phrases were clearer before. Anyway, I'll wait for your proposal before further discussion. But please don't attack other editors as you're doing. If you think I'm trolling, feel free to request admin intervention. UCaetano (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe the editors will not drive me around , fade or play up every time I ask them a direct question about the sources or provoke wars edits ? And by the way , no need to return to this article link.this link is in the article only for increasing it's weight. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The rest I do everything , I'll retire to read the sources for analysis Solaire the knight (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight— Seriously, what are you talking about? Who are you giving a weight loss? Doesn't make any sense. UCaetano (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Only I should again speak directly about the content of the article as we again had problems in communicating . Well, as scheduled Solaire the knight (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Could we please structure the discussion. May I suggest that Solaire the knight formulates specific suggestions what they want to change (they do not need to be formulated in one run) on the talk page here, without actually modifying the article, and then these suggestions could be discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I also asked for the page to be fully protected, so that we could discuss it here without reverting back and forth.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it , right now no one is against article protection , besides, I gradually write source analysis . Another thing is that the participants are trying in every way that I got stuck in the discussion . Here, for example , as soon as I mentioned the meaningless references and non-authoritative source , the participant suddenly ceases to understand me . Solaire the knight (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Since the last trade through the efforts of some of the participants turned to walk around and demagoguery , open the subject again. The authors can provide any or neutral and secondary sources on the topic of the article , except the primary investigation and notes about it on the media site , has never distinguished special love for Russia ? Same,I would like to hear the arguments of the participants about the internal contradictions of the sources themselves and lack of clear evidence. Especially in that moment , when the screens typical of mechanical bots issued as proof of real people working on some manuals Solaire the knight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, which statements of the article do you contest? Please list them one by one and we will discuss them. Especially please indicate specific the contradictions you mention. But we will not discuss neither love for Russia nor "some of the participants". - üser:Altenmann >t 01:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not here to lecture on " Russia's lies" and did not declare that his bias , so it is not necessary here to represent innocence. And so , if you're too shy , I repeat . Do you have a neutral secondary sources other than the primary investigative journalist ? In addition to which ,screens bots are some evidence of entire stories about the Kremlin's agents. This we can find in the first note, where the author without any attribution sends word Savchuk , as evidence to reproduce it using the same words from other publications. Only I am embarrassed that the whole article is written in various publications reprinted the words of one man , and without any attribution and verification of her words ? Solaire the knight (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not create additional sections to discuss the same issue. Keep it in a single thread, in the previous section. UCaetano (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ahahahaha , that is, the higher you are saying that I have not brought any arguments , and in the section with the same arguments you ask me not to create "extra sections " , completely ignoring that the same arguments that were asked . No, you've got questions , please answer them . Solaire the knight (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a very good idea that the admins have locked this important article. The nature of the propaganda and falsification activity of this subject organization is that they will bear their might trying to falsify the facts and erase the facts of this article, as has Russian propaganda/falsification been doing now and at the time of the USSR.Forkhume (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes don't forget they also change/ "falsify" wikipedia pages, they're not just in (social) media, and to my blame/shame I fell in their trap. Ceesboogaart_(talk) 22:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2016

Grammar/tense fix in lead ("has been" to "was"):

the term gained worldwide media attention by June 2015, when one of the offices of a Russian company named "Internet Research Agency", based in Saint-Petersburg, has been exposed with data from fake accounts used for internet trolling

to

the term gained worldwide media attention by June 2015, when one of the offices of a Russian company named "Internet Research Agency", based in Saint-Petersburg, was exposed with data from fake accounts used for internet trolling

clpo13_(talk) 06:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since raising the issue of non-authoritative of sources in the article , resulted in a group baiting me, I temporarily close the claim to the article , in order to avoid further provocations. Better 'll increase the my level of language to the required level , and further work in " my" music topics. Once again I apologize for my level of English , thank you for your patience administrators. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a very good idea that the admins have locked this important article. The nature of the propaganda and falsification activity of this subject organization is that they will bear their might trying to falsify the facts and erase the facts of this article, as has Russian propaganda/falsification been doing now and at the time of the USSR.--Forkhume (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging this article into Web brigades: these two articles are essentially about the same topic, and "Trolls from Olgino" is a more narrow term, referring to one particular "troll farm". --Buzz105 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we'd have a stronger article as one. Needs a merge tag adding to that article too. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A good idea, but Web brigades might use some cleanup.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Undecided: The Trolls from Olgino are arguably from a more specific time period than what Web brigades intends to cover, and while this article still needs work, it is very well-cited and focused. We should also look closely at what term media and more importantly academics are preferring these days. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, the Trolls from Olgino [8] seem to be only one of many groups/facilities who do it. "Web brigades" is a wider subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly Either way, having a standalone page under this title is entirely inappropriate. It's a non-neutral term about a phenomenon whose extent is seriously contested (and of course, of the first two sources here, one is a US state dept front, while the other, Buzzfeed, admits it's hard to prove anything definitive – and neither use the term "Trolls from Olgino"). The phrase itself gets barely more than 1,000 Google hits in my search, most of which seem to be the usual WP mirror content. If it were the common name, it would pass despite its loaded nature, but it clearly isn't. N-HH talk/edits 09:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, per the good analysis, above, by My very best wishes. As for the name, another possible name for this article could be Internet Research Agency, which appears to be the official Russian government name for the Russian propaganda intelligence operation. Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed merge tags. No consensus to support for merge after over 3 months. Sagecandor (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Could there be a "Criticism/Skepticism" section?

To just put out there the fact that just because someone in an online comment section makes a point of view favorable to the Russian government does not in itself prove they are "employed by an Olgino troll factory". Surely that is acceptable. As this article stands, that is exactly the impression a reader would be left with however.

Furthermore it might be warranted to point out that accusations of all pro Russian speech being "paid trolling" may in fact be used as a strategy by rival governments to intimidate anyone seeking to criticize an anti-Russia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but you would need to provide WP:RS for that. --Buzz105 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is useless, because if you try to pay attention to the problems in the article, you yourself will be declared a Kremlin troll, as it was with me. Moreover, most pro-Russian sources have already been declared "Russian propaganda" here. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Move to Internet Research Agency

I'm going to propose this article be moved to Internet Research Agency, as it doesn't comply with our naming policy. The policy says that we should use the subject's most commonly used name as seen in independent, reliable English language sources. Our article suggests that the reason "Trolls from Olgino" was used is because it was adopted by the Russian-language media, based on two Russian-language sources. I don't know about the reliability of those sources, but we should not be basing the title on them. Among other things, I suspect that many Russian spakerss know where Olgino is, whereas most English speakers do not. So calling this article "Trolls from Olgino" is obscuring and unhelpful to the average English speaker. I have also read several English language articles about this subject and none of them have mentioned Olgino. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to make this move (not sure what I think about it) you should change article text to reflect new title. Volunteer Marek  09:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. The article clearly still needs an overhaul to reflect what is now known about the organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Smallbones, regarding this edit, I don't know if "Trolls from Olgino" belongs in the lead section, let alone in the first sentence and bolded. As described in the article, this is the Russian-language slang term and is not what the organization is commonly known as among reliable English-language sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "Trolls from Olgino" probably qualifies as the common name right now. I hadn't seen "Internet Research Agency" until this last week. And that name was probably chosen to be as undescriptive as possible. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that based on your own personal reading experience? I searched for reliable sources referring to the Trolls from Olgino and found none--zero--whereas there have been a whole bunch referring to the Internet Research Agency since the NY Times reported on it in 2015. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

FAN (Federal News Agency)

"The hub of these media operations is a website called FAN (Federal News Agency) whose offices in St. Petersburg are just a stone’s throw from the troll factory’s original location on Savushkina street."

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russias-infamous-troll-factory-is-now-posing-as-a-media-empire-57534 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C77:98A0:8141:4EAC:4A19:8CF5 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

X1\, I don't understand this edit and the summary you gave. What wasn't correct per source? I thought my version hewed closer to the source than yours, but I might have misunderstood something. Please explain your concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Per my edit summary directly from the source:

“I thought it was a knockoff of Black Lives Matter,” he said, adding that it “looked legit.”

from complete paragraph

Another activist, Conrad James, says he received a message in September 2016 after the death of Keith Lamont Scott, a black man who was shot by police in Charlotte, North Carolina. The BlackMattersUS Facebook page reached out to him directly. “I thought it was a knockoff of Black Lives Matter,” he said, adding that it “looked legit.” James ended up organizing two rallies for BlackMattersUS; the second took place in October 2016 as part of a set of national protests coordinated with groups like the A.C.L.U. and the N.A.A.C.P. James had no idea he’d been duped by a Russian troll farm until he was contacted by reporters.

Other RS are similar. Since wp not wp:or, no hewing.

@DrFleischman: I hope you are not attempting to spread Russian government propaganda in Wikipedia ... X1\ (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha no. But you didn't answer my question. What is wrong with the following sentence: "In 2016, People associated with the IRA tricked several American Black Lives Matter activists into thinking they were part of the same movement, organizing protests, and teaching self-defense classes." How does it not reflect the passage you're quoting? Not an argument, just an honest question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not so funny. Did you not read the reference? "Black Lives Matter" only mentioned once in the article, see above; and to be more than clear, not as Black Lives Matter activists. If you have that reference, please add. X1\ (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I thought it was funny. I did read both the Vanity Fair and Buzzfeed sources. I think your concerns may be addressed with smaller changes rather than a wholesale revert. How about: "In 2016, People associated with the IRA tricked several American Black Lives Matter activists into thinking they were part of an affiliated organization, organizing protests, and teaching self-defense classes." As I read the source, the only people who are known to be tricked were Black Lives Matter activists. Not American activists generally (too broad, overstates the IRA's actual influence). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If that is in the Buzzfeed article it will need to be added at this location (too?). Not in Vanity Fair article. X1\ (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, then let's cite the Buzzfeed article. It's the better source anyway since it's a secondary source (not a tertiary source) and has more in-depth coverage. Any further issues with the language I proposed? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Bellingcat

My removal of this Bellingcat source was reverted with the edit summary that Bellingcat is cited all over Wikipedia. If this is the case, it should be removed all over Wikipedia. There's a consensus at RSN that Bellingcat is not a reliable source, and re-inclusion goes against that consensus. This appears to be a straightforward application of WP:UGC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Its funny that in that discussion there is already a guy who called everyone disagreeing with his own opinion - "Savushkino Trolls".89.0.255.121 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Research Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150920093546/http://gawker.com/emails-link-kremlin-troll-farm-to-bizarre-new-york-phot-1725347179 to http://gawker.com/emails-link-kremlin-troll-farm-to-bizarre-new-york-phot-1725347179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ShareAmerica

Why are we citing ShareAmerica, a website run by the US government, in support of controversial content about the Russian government? Is this reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mueller Indictment

I believe this company was just indicted by Mueller.

https://www.scribd.com/document/371672481/U-S-v-Internet-Research-Agency-et-al#fullscreen&from_embed

74.215.6.188 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This makes it too late for trump to fire Mueller; some sources say.--Wikipietime (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dancing

Dancing around the direct benefit that their activities played in electing donald trump is getting ridiculous. At this point in time only what some would consider fringe sources assert the claim. --Wikipietime (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

US government news wing cited

I don't think you can cite a US government news arm as a credible source. They also said there was proof of WMD in Iraq. In the 1980s, that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, and currently, under Trump, does not attribute climate-change to human activity. This reference and its reference in the introduction to "the Kremlin" is therefore invalid: Ref. 16 Victor Ryezunkov (16 March 2015). ""Кремлівські тролі" розповіли про себе: де сидять і чим займаються" ['The Kremlin trolls' tell me where they sit and what they do]. Radio Liberty (in Ukrainian). Retrieved 12 June 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What "news wing"? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Radio Svoboda source was the Ukrainian wing of Radio Liberty. I agree that we should not be citing Radio Liberty or Radio Free Europe and have removed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This article makes every sane person a troll from IRA

WP:NOTFORUM --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism of Alexei Navalny, his sponsors, and Russian opposition in general;"-- Russian opposition is either incapable (Yavlinsky etc), clearly externally led (Navalny case, he's clearly a puppet) or extreme (Limonov etc). "Criticism of Ukraine's and the United States' foreign policies, and of the top politicians of these states;" - Poroshenko makes good profit at washing money through bloody war, currently 1% of Ukrainians support him, see recent Nadiya Savchenko turn from hero to zero, he and his team are crooks; US foreign policies are war-mongering based on fake evidence (Saddam, Gadaffi, Yanukovich, now Assad). "Praise for Vladimir Putin and the policy of the Russian Federation;" - Putin is the one who massively contributed to ISIL destruction, where US actually supported them with same goals Brzezinski founded Al Qaeda. "Praise for and defense of Bashar al-Assad;" - Assad is the one who fights against ISIL and is ruler of Syria, where US came in with hot weapons and pathetic evidence. Articles like this and their "quality" which are the reason why sane part of the world does not take WP seriously. 89.0.255.121 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Concord Management and Consulting trial

I have added this to the main article.

"Lawyers representing Concord Management and Consulting appeared on May 9 in federal court in Washington to plead not guilty to the charges."

This is quite notable, since Mueller will soon have to produce evidence (that will stand up in court) to prove the elaborate conspiracy theory.

Keith McClary (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation Infektion

Editors active here may be interested in reading and building out Operation Infektion. This was a 1980s Soviet disinformation campaign that was uncovered by the U.S. State Department. It was recently featured in a series of New York Times videos as a precursor to Russia's modern disinformation practices and its interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The main problem with our article on the subject is that it relies almost exclusively on a single State Department report. However there's no shortage of independent news articles, peer-reviewed journal entries, and reputably published books on the subject. The article could be expanded on and made more robust by using such independent sources. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Worthy of article

Is this; “the company belonged to Mikhail Bystrov, who had been the head of the police station at Moscow district of Saint Petersburg.[15]”

Really adequate? I created an article on him, which was deleted pretty quickly. Wikipietime (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

troll farm hiding

Internet_Research_Agency#Offices locations

Quotes from https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/10/26/putin-at-20-influencer-1/content.html:

Finding the trolls is hard, even so. The first place I looked was 55 Savushkina Street, a squat commercial building in a quiet suburb north of the River Neva. Everyone knows this is where the Internet Research Agency (IRA) was based when it flooded Facebook with fake news about Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election. Maybe someone knew where it had gone?

No chance. “Every business here is listed on the notice behind you,” I was told. “There is no Internet Research Agency. Goodbye.”

The IRA has acquired several new identities over the past three years. One is the Federal News Agency (FAN) – not so much a news agency as a collection of hundreds of fake social media accounts that seed the ether with bogus stories and drive them up news lists on aggregators like Google news and yandex.ru.

Last year the trolls were traced to a blue, glass office block two miles from Savushkina Street, where the Pentagon’s Cyber Command managed to disable local internet access during the 2018 US mid-terms. When I asked there for Mikhail Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik (the top two names on a list of 13 Russians indicted for fraud and other crimes in the Mueller Report on Russian interference in the 2016 election), I was shown the door.

“It’s pointless to chase them round the city,” says Denis Korotkov, a former detective who has become one of St Petersburg’s most respected investigative journalists. “They change addresses and profiles so often. For them this is just contract work. They do it, and move on.” As for Bystrov and Burchik, Korotkov says anyone who claims to know who the disinformation kingpins are at any given moment is lying. “People are afraid to talk.”

Moscowdreams (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

no russian wikipedia page on Denis Korotkov Денис Коротков. Moscowdreams (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Korotkov is author of an article in Fontanka (fontanka.ru), which is cited here 5 times. I have no clue about the quality of particular media outlets in Russia and Eastern Europe, so locals should speak up as to their reliability, but they state on their site they are:

a St. Petersburg online newspaper. ... the leading St. Petersburg online socio-political publication. St. Petersburg reads "Fontanka"! Our audience is business leaders and politicians, officials, tens of thousands of citizens.

That said @Moscowdreams:, the blog post you cite is signed by Giles Whittell, who is indeed credited by Tortoise Media as their "World Affairs Editor", and they have decent names listed in the rest of their staff. The problem is that despite their "About" page claiming to have an open newsroom, they don't seem to hint at an editorial/oversight policy anywhere. Tentatively with in-line attribution however, I'd say it's ok to cite in this article. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed merge proposal

per my comment yesterday at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Merger discussion Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

accurate description of "tricked activists"

An editor reverted my accurate edit and tagged it as "vandalism".

Surely this was an error?

The article had read: "According to a 17 October 2017 BuzzFeed News report, IRA duped American activists into taking real action via protests and self-defense training in what would seem to be a further attempt to exploit racial grievances." [emphasis mine].

I edited it to read: "According to a 17 October 2017 BuzzFeed News report, IRA duped Americans, primarily black activists, into taking real action via protests and self-defense training in what would seem to be a further attempt to exploit racial grievances." [emphasis mine; changes bold]

To say the change was well-sourced is a gross understatement:

1. A cursory look at the cited Vanity Fair article shows that it uses the adjective "black" 26 times and states:

• The troll farm’s targets seem to primarily have been black activists.

It also mentions a total of three activists, all black:

• In May 2016, [a black activist] was approached several times by… a man who claimed... he wrote for a Web site called BlackMattersUS, which focused “mostly on racism and police brutality themes” and which, Russian news outlet RBC reports, is linked to the Internet Research Agency. The BlackMattersUS Web site is still up...
• Another [black] activist, Conrad James, says he received a message in September 2016 after the death of Keith Lamont Scott, a black man who was shot by police in Charlotte, North Carolina. The BlackMattersUS Facebook page reached out to him directly. “I thought it was a knockoff of Black Lives Matter,” he said, adding that it “looked legit.” James ended up organizing two rallies for BlackMattersUS; the second took place in October 2016 as part of a set of national protests coordinated with groups like the A.C.L.U. and the N.A.A.C.P. James had no idea he’d been duped by a Russian troll farm until he was contacted by reporters.
• the Russians also contacted activists like [black] M.M.A. fighter Omowale Adewale about self-defense training. The troll farm established a self-defense group, Black Fist, whose Web site reads, “Be ready to protect your rights . . . Let them know that Black Power Matters.” After being approached by a man named Taylor on Instagram in January 2017 about holding classes, Adewale started to train a small group.

2. Just in case that wasn't enough, I also added a citation to the BuzzFeed article itself, the headline of which is:

• These Americans Were Tricked Into Working For Russia. They Say They Had No Idea. BuzzFeed News spoke to four people who organized black rights protests and taught self-defense classes after being contacted by Russian trolls pretending to be US activists.

The article uses the word "black" 26 times.

3. A Vox article agrees:

• 4 main takeaways from new reports on Russia’s 2016 election interference… one includes Russia’s deliberate targeting of African Americans online.
• Russia especially targeted African Americans
• The most prolific IRA efforts on Facebook and Instagram specifically targeted Black American communities and appear to have been focused on developing Black audiences and recruiting Black Americans as assets.
• no other racial or social group received as much attention from the Russians as black Americans.
• While other distinct ethnic and religious groups were the focus of one or two Facebook Pages or Instagram accounts, the Black community was targeted extensively with dozens; this is why we have elected to assess the messaging directed at Black Americans as a distinct and significant operation',” the report says.'

4. And why stop there? Our own Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections notes:

• no other group received as much attention as Black Americans.
• The attempt to target Black Americans has been compared to the KGB's attempt to foster racial tensions during Operation INFEKTION.
• A total 30 Facebook pages targeting Black Americans and 10 YouTube channels that posted 571 videos related to police violence against African-Americans. The covertly Russian Instagram account @blackstagram had more than 300,000 followers. A variety of Facebook pages targeting African Americans and later determined to be Russian amassed a total of 1.2 million individual followers, the report found. The Facebook page for (the Russian) Blacktivist, garnered more hits than Black Lives Matter's (non-Russian) Facebook page.

To suggest my editing was "POV-pushing" or "vandalism" suggests a complete unfamiliarity with the subject—as well as an abject failure to read and comprehend the actual RS cited.

Given that it was accurate, NPOV, well-sourced, and adds significant understanding to the subject of our article, I am reinstating my edit. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely this is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Generalrelative (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a brief and reasoned explanation—with an abundance of quotes from sources cited in the article, as well as our own articles, supporting that explanation. You'll need to explain why including "primarily black" to "activists" while citing an article that states the "troll farm’s targets seem to primarily have been black activists" is "naked POV-pushing about race".

To that end:

1. What exactly is this "POV about race" you claim is being "pushed"?
2. How are you improving our encyclopedia by removing the race of activists who were fraudulently enticed to organize and attend protests "to exploit racial grievances"?
3. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that "No single group of Americans was targeted by IRA information operatives more than African-Americans." Is including that fact, echoed by dozens of RS, "POV-pushing"?
4. If not, what makes accurately identifying those very same African-Americans here "POV-pushing"?

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 23:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your presentation of the sources does not hold up to scrutiny –– I might suggest it is an "abject failure" to construct an intelligent argument or something of the sort if I wanted to descend to your level.

In the currently cited Vanity Fair article [9], for instance, it is made clear that most Russian efforts unveiled thus far seem to have been aimed at weaponizing the far right. It goes on to say that the targeting of African-American leftists was a novel tactic that showed Russia was equally willing to target both sides, but your edit misrepresented this source by making no mention of the right-wingers who have been the primary consumers of Russian disinformation.

The Buzzfeed article you attempted to cite makes no mention of the overall balance of Russian disinformation efforts (instead it details four anecdotal examples). Again, you simply misrepresented the source.

With regard to our Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections page, I'm surprised that you do not know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But if you had honestly presented this "source", you would have noted the following section that details Russian attempts to arouse conservatives. Here's what the New York Times says about the matter [10]:

Of 81 Facebook pages created by the Internet Research Agency in the Senate’s data, 30 targeted African-American audiences, amassing 1.2 million followers, the report finds. By comparison, 25 pages targeted the political right and drew 1.4 million followers.

Yes, there was a disproportionate effort to dupe African Americans, which makes it all the more striking that more right-wingers ended up actually getting duped. Generalrelative (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Closed down?

There are reports that the IRA has been closed down following Prigozhin's rebellion: see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/01/yevgeny-prigozhin-russian-media-erase-warlord-wagner-moscow . However, given the general background of misinformation on all sides, it might be a good idea to wait for more reliable sources on this. — The Anome (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Movie about IRA

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the movie about the IRA yet. It's called "The 16th", is a comedy, and was produced by Prigozhin.
https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/troll-king-prigozhin-really-rose-to-power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vila9skQlm4 23.233.157.14 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)