Talk:Guccifer 2.0

This article obviously has issues with neutrality and could reasonably be considered "Russia bashing". All of the links are to fake news websites. The only explanation given for the hack is "Russia did it", forgoing alternative explanations. -- 45.72.137.215 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, this article reflects the range of what reliable sources say on the subject. When a half-dozen cybersecurity firms independently come to the same conclusion, that will reflect how the text reads. "Alternative explanations" lack evidence or significant support, and so are not unduly emphasized here. See WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE.

When has the reliability of these "half-dozen security firms" been tested? Is it not that case that other, better-known cybersecurity experts (including McAfee a few days ago) have flat-out contradicted them? More generally, on what grounds do you consider any source in an issue charged with politics and intrigue "reliable?" All such sources are highly questionable, whether they are in the majority or not. Presenting them as otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Kozzm0 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "All of the links are to fake news websites." What source, specifically, do you object to? Neutrality^talk 00:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have undone a substantial reorganization of the article. I do appreciate that this edit was made in good faith, but I don't think it was an improvement on the existing organization. My primary objections are on WP:WEIGHT grounds, which extends to organization of content: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

• First - I strongly object to the idea that the unanimous or near-unanimous consensus of cybersecurity experts and firms should get shunted to the very bottom of the article. The core question of "identity" is basically the most important point of the article, and we should present the views of experts front and center - prominently and substantially. The denials of the hacking persona and the Russian government are certainly relevant - and they have always included in this article - but they need not get the same treatment.

• Second, and relatedly - I do not like the grouping of "Alleged Russian interference" and "Alleged no Russian interference." I find this not very well worded. More substantively, I think this presentation plays into WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the experts (and I count in this category CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the security editor for Ars Technica, in addition to the U.S. government) say one thing, and that's met with a blanket denial, then we should present both of those things plainly and clearly, but shouldn't present them as equally valid.

--Neutrality^talk 21:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Neutrality: :) Thanks for expressing your concerns. To facilitate the readers experience when searching for information of interest, I suggest to group that article related and similar content in two sections. While making no change to both allegations:

1. "Alleged Russian interference"

2. "Alleged no Russian interference"

That draft shows how those two sections would look like. Anyone has a suggestion about a better wording for those two sections?

Another benefit of grouping content in two sections is the better balance the article. I mean originally the amount of allegation about Russian interference was equal to the amount of allegations about no Russian interference. But currently the total space used by allegation about Russian interference is significantly larger than the no Russian interference. I feel that it's fair for both allegation sides to use an equal amount of space in that article.

As for the sorting of "Alleged Russian interference" and "Alleged no Russian interference", I feel it's appropriate to first present Guccifer 2.0's allegations because that article is about her/him/them. Then present second the allegations of second and third parties.

On the other hand I agree that presenting both allegations together or close by each other clarifies and keep each allegation within its context. How about not grouping the content in two sections, but instead further balance the parts of that article that feels unbalance? In other words, to balance the allegations how about reducing the amount of one-sided content by adding both sides of the allegations?

Francewhoa (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about this - I moved the "Guccifer 2.0" statement to the beginning of the "Identity" section, so we start with that and then go into what others point out, as you suggested. I also merged the "Background" section into the "Identity" section because (1) the text wasn't really background at all and (2) I can accept your idea about presenting the various positions in the same section.

I think the point we disagree on is your statement, "I feel that it's fair for both allegation sides to use an equal amount of space in that article." I do understand that impulse, but the premise is incorrect. I agree it's important to clearly and accurately explain the positions of the Russian government, Assange, and the "Guccifer 2.0" character. And we do so already. We don't need to give them "equal time" nor should we. WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view ... needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Neutrality^talk 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Francewhoa - I'm just saw your latest edit. I'm fine with some of it, but I have edited it here. I've removed the RT and Daily Caller cites, since they are not reliable, particularly in this context, and we don't need them in any case, since we have better sources. I've left the "Guccifer 2.0" statement in the lead, but condensed it substantially to reflect the persona's denial of Russian ties. I've moved the "crude fake" claim to the appropriate section as well. ("Post-election blog post"). Neutrality^talk 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to article: his communication with the Trump campaign's Roger Stone. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to either adjust or balance CrowdStrike's claims in this article. Because according to the Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.

Related articles and sources

• http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html
• http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francewhoa (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• http://www.globalresearch.ca/fool-me-once-dnc-ally-crowdstrike-claimed-two-cases-of-russian-hacking-one-at-least-was-fake/5581368

Related video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be

Francewhoa (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in that other talk page. This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)

Francewhoa (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality:, @Francewhoa: I believe this talkpage is just as good for this article. And I've seen the VOA article already, it covers CrowdStrike retracting a prior claim that Russian-backed militants in eastern Ukraine destroyed 80% of type of Ukrainian field artillery pieces and now claim that it was only 20%. CrowdStrike continues to assert that Fancy Bear smartphone malware was used to track the physical locations of these units on the battlefield, which the Ukrainian military continues to deny. Since this has nothing to do with the DNC email hack or the "Guccifer 2.0" persona specifically, I don't see how it relates at all to this article. Francewhoa apparently considers Globalresearch.ca a reliable resource. They are a conspiracy theory website that is entertaining to browse but is not reliable for any Wikipedia purpose. I'm not familiar with where CounterPunch is on the reliability scale, but the claim that CrowdStrike lied to you is false enough that Francewhoa should strike it from their statement. It looks like they cited bad numbers for battlefield casualties from a third party, something that is probably not a cybsersecurity firm's core competency, and later have walked that back with better sourcing. That looks like reliability to me. I don't see the problem for this article. Geogene (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If a site is to be considered unreliable because it theorizes that conspiracies have taken place (crimes where more than one person collude), then all sites which push the Russia hack theory are to be considered unreliable, since the Russia hack theory is a conspiracy theory. The logical implication is that none of the MSM should be considered reliable. CrowdStrike (a conspiracy theory promoter) should not be considered a reliable source on the source of the security breach(es) of the DNC servers during the 2016 election, as Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC, which refused to turn over servers to the FBI. An agency which is paid for by one political party, could be expected to produce claims which bolster that party's agenda or talking points.(PeacePeace (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

No. One of the many important differences between CrowdStrike and, say, GlobalResearch.ca, is that CrowdStrike is treated as reliable by RS. And claiming that CrowdStrike is a "conspiracy theory promoter" is fairly absurd. Consider whether you're defining "conspiracy theory" correctly here. Geogene (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to add the following section to its own section. As it's significant information. Also it would further add NPV to that article, because that information from Guccifer 2.0 himself contradict numerous expert's claims about the source.

On August 25, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 claimed that murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff Seth Rich “was my whistleblower”.[1] Rich was a data analyst staff with the DNC. The month before, Rich was killed in Washington DC on July 10, 2016 with multiple gun shots. The following month, WikiLeaks offered a USD $20,000 reward for any information leading to a conviction in Rich's murder case.[2]

Francewhoa (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this Robbin Young Guccifer 2.0 claim should be added to the article, though I don't know any way to verify that this Twitter Guccifer 2.0 who claims Seth Rich as opposed to Russians, is the same person who posted the Russia hacks claim. (PeacePeace (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

No, I don't feel it fits with NPOV policy - the cited source even describes it as a conspiracy theory. Stickee (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Some of the documents they say they released" I suggest that "they" be replaced with a noun because as it reads, it is unclear. Does the writer refer to Wikileaks as "they" here? (PeacePeace (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

"They" is Guccifer 2.0. Who asserts that they are an individual, but who reliable sources say is a Russian disinformation program. Not all of the (purported) documents they dumped went through Wikileaks. As far as I can remember, I don't think WL published anything that appeared to be forged, I think Guccifer 2.0 was passing those around to various journalists. Sources should be reviewed to make sure that's accurate, and that text should be changed to avoid casting unwarranted aspersions on WikiLeaks. Geogene (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If these are the sentences in question "Guccifer 2.0" is a person or persona stating they were the hacker(s) that hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and then leaked its documents to the media,[1][2] the website WikiLeaks,[3][4][5][6][7] and a conference event.[8] Some of the documents they say they released appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.[9][10][11], then it's already clear that the "they" is Guccifer 2.0, the subject of the article. Geogene (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Phmoreno: Regarding your recent edit, this has been challenged before. There's a number of reasons why your edit is problematic:

• It represents a fringe view (VIPS is not a mainstream view and frequently advances claims without evidence)
  • See this NBC report: Describing VIPS as "a fringe theory" and noting that "The memo has since been disputed, even by some members of the group, including Thomas Drake, another NSA whistleblower.").
  • See this debunking article from New York, which explains how VIPS memo relies on "a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny."
• It's cited to a source labeled prominently labeled "opinion."
• It's undue weight for the lead section. (WP:WEIGHT).

--Neutrality^talk 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that Stickee has previously removed this content, and I think Geogene might have as well. Phmoreno, if you want to pursue this, then post here and try to change the consensus. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's been discussed to death, and it's pro-fringe. It got more press as a minor controversy about The Nation's reporting than it did about challenging the mainstream view of Russian hacking. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. If I recall, even some VIPS members were embarrassed by the quality of the report. Stickee (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to add the below section to the article, but another wikipedia user deleted it from the article. I'm moving the relevant discussion from my talk page to this article's talk page as a more appropriate location. I could use assistance in reaching some kind of consensus on this. Thanks. Whoisg2 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Neutrality^talk 02:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The websites which I cited are quite reliable. More importantly, every fact that I added can be independently verified with a text editor and some basic computer science knowledge. That section should be added back to the article unless a consensus is reached to delete the section from the article. Thanks Whoisg2 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Russian metadata “fingerprints” were found to have been intentionally inserted into at least 5 documents from Guccifer 2’s first wordpress blog post on 6/15/16.^[1] These Russian metadata "fingerprints" were not found to be present in the versions of these documents found in Wikileaks’ DNC/Podesta email publications.^[2] As of November 26, 2018, it was discovered that G2 likely planted Russian metadata "fingerprints" into multiple of it's wordpress posts.^[3] Elizabeth Vos of Disobedient Media noted that while there is evidence that G2 published documents and email screenshots, there is no evidence that Guccifer 2 published a single email.^[4] The Wikileaks DNC/Podesta email publications contain tens of thousands of emails in .eml file format, as opposed to G2’s documents which contained .doc/.docx, pdf, and .xlsx (spreadsheet) formatted files.^[5]

In addition to inserted Russian “fingerprints”, Guccifer 2 inserted at least 5 Romanian/Chinese “fingerprints” into documents on it’s 6/30/16 wordpress post. These files were last modified by “朱德” (Zhu De), a famous Chinese general and a pioneer of the Communist Party of China and had Romanian and Chinese language settings activated on these documents. Versions of these documents found in the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta email publications contain no such Romanian or Chinese “fingerprints”.^[6][7]

On it’s July 6, 2016 wordpress post, Guccifer 2 also inserted Vietnamese “fingerprints” into at least 5 uploaded documents. Each Vietnamese “fingerprinted” file had a LastModifiedBy value of “Nguyễn Văn Thắng”, a high ranking Vietnamese communist party leader. Zhu De and Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky were also communist party leaders in China and the Soviet Union, respectively, and inserted by G2 into previous wordpress documents in the LastModifiedBy metadata values/fields.^[8]

Assange claimed that Wikileaks emails were “pristine” and did not contain the circumstantial evidence of Russian involvement found in the “separate batch” of documents published by G2/Gawker/Smoking Gun. As previously noted, clear evidence of alterations/inserted “fingerprints” were found to be present in Guccifer 2’s published documents. On the other hand, Wikileaks’ DNC/Podesta email publications were not found to have a single instance of altered metadata or inserted Russian/Chinese/Romanian “fingerprints”. In addition to this, many of Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails and attachments were shown to be authentic/unaltered through DKIM verification.^[9][10] Whoisg2 (talk) 02:20, January 9, 2019‎ (UTC)

This was completely debunked . Geogene (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The ComputerWeekly article cited above makes false claims about the NGP-VAN archive being the only evidence with US indicators. There was a central timezone indicator found in an archive Guccifer 2.0 released on 21 June, 2016 that was found by Bruce Leidl , another file-based Central timezone indicator tied to Guccifer 2.0's activities was found by Stephen McIntyre and another file Guccifer 2.0 released on 6 July, 2016 was found with an Eastern timezone indicator. Despite being a blatant hit-piece, the ComputerWeekly article clearly has issues with accuracy, makes false statements about evidence that are trivial to rebut and focuses on attacking character while ignoring most of the discoveries made. The author of that piece also made claims that they knew to be false . The evidence itself still exists, it's still verifiable and is unaffected (and was mostly unaddressed) by the ComputerWeekly piece . Evidencematters (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, to start, this is an example of Guccifer 2 admitting to intentionally leaving Russian metadata in an interview with Vice on June 21, 2016. "The hacker (G2) said he left Russian metadata in the leaked documents as his personal "watermark."^[1]. I will add this to the article's talk page as well. Thanks for the WP source guideline info.Whoisg2 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course the Russian spy agency operating the Guccifer persona would claim that (1) they are not Russian spies and (2) that any Russian fingerprints on their work would be intentional disinformation on his part. But now that this whole thing is known to be a hoax , I don't understand the point in posting old news articles here. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the subject or spreading disinformation. I move that this thread be closed, since it serves no purpose. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

i guess it's a russian hoax, too, that cohen, while being mostly truthful in his hearing and clearly having lost all interest in defending trump, still denied your russia story. pathetic. these claims from "reputable" sources have as much evidence behind them as the claims about iraq's WMDs by the same sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E9:43D8:3800:1054:61B4:B086:4EB0 (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that's not a truthful statement. Not only did Cohen not deny any 'Russian story', said that he is suspicious that Trump might have colluded with Russia. Then he hedged the remark by admitting that he doesn't have anything he would consider to be "direct evidence" of collusion . And while there is no doubt that Russia hacked the DNC in a deliberate effort to benefit Donald Trump, and there's no doubt that Guccifer 2.0 is a fake persona that they used to spread disinformation, the separate allegation that Donald Trump might have actively colluded with them, as opposed to Trump merely being a hapless and passive beneficiary of the Putin propaganda machine, remains unproven. The possibility of active collusion between Trump and Russia is separate from the already settled matter of whether or not Russia interfered in the election on its own initiative. By the way, Cohen is a lawyer who is infamous for allegedly having paid a porn star not to talk about an affair she claims to have had with Trump. That does not make him an expert in Russian hacking, and I would be surprised if he knows anything about the subject of this article. He wouldn't necessarily know whether any active collusion between Trump and Russia happened or not, and I don't see the point in having a prohibited (WP:NOTFORUM) debate with you about him. But I resent our talk pages being hijacked to spread misinformation, and this is easy to debunk. Geogene (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this just a conspiracy theory? This is not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.187.185.84 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)