Talk:Cyberwarfare by Russia

Deletions of sourced and relevant texts

What undue weight and why are you talking about? Please explain. Actually, you just reverted all my edits: .Biophys (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot base 50% of this article on Polyanskaya's claims. Also, your edits messed up the attributions as I explained in my edit summary. Offliner (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you removed a lot of materials (see the diff), not only materials from Polynaskaya article. Second, she and others made an important publication on this subject: this article describes Russian internet teams in a much greater detail than any other publications. Hence, more text from there. You can add alternative views if you do not like it, and in fact such views are currently present in the article.Biophys (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And you call this improvement of the article? Please explain what's the problem. This is all relevant and sourced.Biophys (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop the reverts and explain what's the problem?Biophys (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit summaries, I have explained my edits there. What part of them do you not understand? Offliner (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted five large segments of sourced text. You must justify why. To start from something, let's consider these two segments. Why did you delete them? Biophys (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agents in wikipedia

A number of publications suggested that intelligence agents may have infiltrated Wikipedia to remove undesirable information and insert disinformation . According to publication in Russian computer weekly Computerra, anonymous editors have always "corrected" and continue "correcting" articles of Russian Wikipedia in the interests of special services, although "this is nothing special since everyone knows about the special place of the secret services in the structure of Russian state"

The publication in Computerra tells about possible activity of Russian agents in wikipedia (mostly Russian Wikipedia). Please stop removing this.Biophys (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

The alleged FSB activities on the Internet have been described in the short story "Anastasya" by Russian writer Grigory Svirsky, who was interested in the moral aspects of their work. He wrote:

"It seems that offending, betraying, or even "murdering" people in the virtual space is easy. This is like killing an enemy in a video game: one does not see a disfigured body or the eyes of the person who is dying right in front of you. However, the human soul lives by its own basic laws that force it to pay the price for the virtual crime in his real life".

Russian agents in Polish web sites

According to claims of unnamed "Polish experts on Russian affairs", reported by the Polish newspaper Tygodnik Powszechny in 2005, at least a dozen active Russian agents work in Poland, also investigating the Polish Internet. The source also claims that the agents scrutinize Polish websites (like those supporting Belarusian opposition), and also perform such actions, as—for instance—contributing to Internet forums on large portals (like Gazeta.pl, Onet.pl, WP.pl). Labeled as Polish Internet users, they incite anti-Semitic or anti-Ukrainian discussions or disavow articles published on the web, according to the source.[29]

This text is obviously about Russian state agents who work in the internet. Please stop mass deletions of relevant and sourced texts. If you continue, I will have to ask 3rd opinions at RfC and perhaps at other noticeboards.Biophys (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any linking of the event with "Russian secret police" in the source. Offliner (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement made is a secondary source, referring to an anonymous primary source. Due to anonymity of the primary source, the statement can't be verified and its reliability can't be checked. ellol (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Offliner also removed another segment. Why? Would you please restore it? Text about Polish sites describes "Russian agents" (hence the security services). This is a common practice by journalists to refer to anonymous sources, such as unnamed governmental officials. Tygodnik Powszechny qualifies as WP:RS. If you think it does not, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The primary source used by Tygodnik Powszechny is anonymous, and thus the information is unverifiable and unreliable. The Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, i.e. it must be a reliable tertiary source. But the secondary source this fragment relies upon is unverifiable, because it's based on the anomymous primary source. That's why I suggest the information shouldn't be treated as reliable. ellol (talk)

Wrong. Deep Throat was an anonymous primary source in Watergate, and turned out to be entirely verifiable.

All that happens when a newspaper uses an anonymous source is that the newspaper takes responsibility. The reliability of the story is to be estimated based on reputation of the newspaper combined with what the newspaper says about the anonymous source's reliability. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, you are an established editor, why do you lie? I'm taking a pro-Russia side, but I do not lie, unlike what you did. ellol (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for not knowing the protocol. I didn't know the standard greeting in these parts of Wikipedia involves asking why you haven't stopped beating your wife yet. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You have attacked yourselves when you lied. Don't lie, and you won't feel ashamed. ellol (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of funny conspiracy theories are going around regarding pecularities of Russian national interests. Some of them are rather hard to believe. But the plausibility of Internet brigades is significantly reinforced by the fact that a number of editors with well-known Russian connections keep attacking an article casting light onto the Internet brigades. If the Internet brigades' story were just an old wives' tale, it certainly wouldn't deserve such an attention, and instead of removing content from here, those people would actually watch out for this kind of vandalism, so it would be reverted a bit faster than in three hours' time. I guess Internet brigades' coverup is more important than ensuring the quality of an article about Russian economy. Very sad. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one: . This one stood for about six hours. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

These texts that is content were usually not sourced and not encyclopedic. Zezen (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Top Takes

• Top Takes: Suspected Russian Intelligence Operation. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense paragraph removed

I have removed the following paragraph, which was added by User:Fyeahadrianax in April, and reflects that user's only edits:

October 2016 the US officially accused Russia of involvement in hacking into distributive numerical control computers also known as DNC to interfere with the network in the great attempt to obstruct the presidential elections. , “US Officially Accuses Russia of Hacking DNC and Interfering with Election,” The Guardian, October 8, 2016, accessed August 13, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack- interfering-presidential-electionNot only was it confirmed that there was proof of medaling with the elections there was evidence that the one who ordered for the election to be tampered with was by the Russian President Vladimir Putin so that the chances of Donald Trump becoming the next president would be much higher, “Putin Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, Report Says,” The New York Times, January 6, 2017, accessed July 8, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russia-hack-report.html Cyber warfare can instill discord, confusion even mayhem in certain instances.

Obviously, this is at best ignorant, and at worst a hoax, since the "DNC" referred to in the article has nothing to do with "distributive numerical control". bd2412 T 03:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Cyberwarfare by Russia → Cyberwarfare and RussiaCyberwarfare and Russia – First, using "and" rather than "by" avoids any perceived risk of WP:POVFORK, WP:POVNAMING, WP:POVTITLE, and WP:NDESC. Second, although WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, it makes us WP:CONSISTENT with the other national Cyberwarfare articles, which are all otherwise framed as "and". Third, "And" makes more thematic sense, because it allows us to include non-state actors in the article (for example, the material about cyberattacks by "Russian IP addresses" which were not be linked to the Russian government should probably be removed in the current framing as the are not "by" "Russia"). "And" also makes broader thematic sense, because cyberwarfare offensive and defensive capabilities, and perceptions and responses to threats, are intertwined in many ways. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Computer security, WikiProject Espionage, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Russia have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with your points about how the current title is not fully neutral, but changing "by" to "and" means that the title would not be as clear as it currently is, readers would be less informed regarding who is conducting the mentioned operations. This article is relating to cyberwarfare conducted by Russia, Russia is more than just another party to this series of events. This change would make the title far less WP:PRECISE and is very likely not the WP:COMMONNAME. If this change can receive favourable consensus despite my objection, the article would require significant reworking. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any POV issue with the current title. Russia widely engages in cyberwarfare against other countries; if there are non-state actors involved, they're definitively not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article. I find the "Cyberwarfare and country" titles to be fairly lazy and vague. Nothing spectacular, but a proposal addressing the OP's issue regarding "Russian IP addresses" could be renaming to Russian cyberwarfare, consistent with another form of Russian hybrid warfare, Russian disinformation. But I'd favor keeping the current title. Super Ψ Dro 14:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:CONSISTENT is not an issue I fail to see where you concluded that "are all otherwise framed as "and" : see Category:Cyberwarfare by country. There is nothing POV in title. I fail to see how the title forces one to imply be linked to the Russian government and what is more, how the title with "and" helps to avoid this implication, if any. Finally, If you need a broader sense, i.e. cyberattacks on Russia the title should be Cyberwarfare in Russia --Altenmann >talk 17:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Each 'national' article in that WP:CAT is indeed a consistent "and" but this one: Cyberwarfare and China, Cyberwarfare and the United States, Cyberwarfare and Iran.

  That said, your suggestion of Cyberwarfare in Russia addresses my points on scope and I would certainly support it as an alternative proposal. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Qwerty123M. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.