Talk:Cyber Anakin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Cyber Anakin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Prior articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A mountain out of molehill?

Latest comment: 2 years ago62 comments13 people in discussion

Materials were removed from here by Softlemonades and Sideswipe9th starting from a few days ago; see this, this and this, however his removals had caused the page to become out of date and made it less interesting to readers instead, so I had restored the contents again.

For information, one of the removed contents involved a Taiwan News source, which has been judged as quite reliable except in rare situations (i.e. when the term "Wuhan Flu" was used, which wasn't in this case). Therefore, the removal gave an impression of whacking a mountain out of a molehill.

Please advise on whether it's all fine to restore the content. Short of that, which part of content should be restored? 45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Taking the removals made by Softlemonades in order:

Failed verification - I kinda agree with this. Beyond the leaked data, the nature of the link between the Distributed Denial of Secrets group and Cyber Anakin was not made clear in that source. While it's verifiable that Cyber Anakin's leak was included in the Dark Side of the Kremlin collection, how or why it is in there is not made clear.
Unneeded text - I agree with this one. While wanting to be more like Justin Bieber may be relevant to Cyber Anakin, it's not really notable in an encyclopaedic sense. CA's main notability comes from their hacktivist activities, not their personal life for which we know very little.
Unreliable sourced, poorly sourced, or unsourced information - There's a lot to go through in this diff, as it removed 8kb of text. While Taiwan News was the first source removed, it was not the only one removed. Among other references there was an archive of an archive (an issue I've repeatedly tried to resolve on this article and will talk about below) to a Reddit post, a citation to Inquisitr (a WP:GUNREL source), two bioRxiv preprints, a source considered for the spam blacklist in 2011, and a block of text sourced entirely to hockey39.ru (a site for which no reliability or unreliability has been established).

The Inquisitr and bioRxiv preprints are unreliable. Because the bioRxiv preprints are being used to support text relating to Covid-19, that text nominally falls under WP:MEDRS criteria which preprints outright fail. As I mentioned above, Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source, and should never be used for information about a living person. The block of text cited to hockey39.ru needs additional sources for verification, as that site presents verification challenges (Russian language, and unknown reliability).

The archive of an archive of a Reddit post provides two issues. One is that social media posts like Reddit cannot be used except for simple WP:ABOUTSELF statements, that do not involve claims about others. This usage clearly fell far outside an ABOUTSELF statement, and as such needs a strong reliable secondary source before it can be restored. Unfortunately I'm unsure if Gold Coast Bulletin is a reliable source in this context. The other issue is that citing an archive of an archive is not how we cite sources on Wikipedia. When using a Citation Style 1/2 template, the |url= parameter is always a link to the original source. When the original link is live, this enables verification as required by policy. The |archive-url= parameter is used to link to an archive of the original URL only. This is then used for verification whenever the original link is deleted or becomes otherwise unavailable. We never cite an archive of an archive both because they break the verification chain, and because they prevent users (particularly academics) who may be using our citations through reference management software in other works from doing so accurately. This second issue, citations to an archive of an archive, has been a perennial issue on this article for the last year, and needs to stop. I've discussed this previously with the editor who was advocating for nested archives, however that discussion has not resulted in this issue being resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

On the topic "Failed Verification", this Heinz Heise article provided that Unter anderem werden die von "Cyber Anakin" geleakten Daten veröffentlicht, der angeblich aus Rache wegen des Abschusses von MH17 wahllos russische Websites gehackt hat. Oder Hacks der Gruppe Shaltai Boltai, die "russische Oligarchen und Entscheidungstreffer" zum Ziel hatten, was ebenso wahllos zu sein scheint und neben etwa angeblichen Emails von Wladislaw Surkow, einem Politiker und früheren persönlichen Berater von Putin, auch private Emails von Nichtregierungsangehörigen einbegreift. Für den angeblichen Hack von Surkows Email-Account 2016 waren ukrainischer Hacker von CyberHunta verantwortlich, Emails sollen belegen, dass sein Büro mit Separatisten in der Ostukraine verbunden war, dass Moskau mit diesen in Kontakt stand und steht, ist allerdings kein großes Geheimnis., which translates to Among other things, the data leaked by "Cyber Anakin" is published, which is said to have indiscriminately hacked Russian websites in revenge for the downing of MH17. Or hacks by the Shaltai Boltai group targeting "Russian oligarchs and decision-makers," which also seems indiscriminate and includes private emails from non-government officials alongside alleged emails from Vladislav Surkov, a politician and former personal adviser to Putin. Ukrainian hackers from CyberHunta were responsible for the alleged hack of Surkov's email account in 2016. Emails are said to prove that his office was connected to separatists in eastern Ukraine, but that Moscow was and is in contact with them is not a big secret.. It's going to take an Olympics level gymnastics to suggest that it failed WP:V.

On "unneeded text", the example you've cited is a gray area and is subject to the eye of the beholders. Some will feel that it is very pertinent "MacGuffin" to describe the M.O. of this hacktivist. In my opinion it's best to leave it as it is.

The biorxiv document is used to back up the claim that he participated in a citizen science project, namely EteRNA, although it might be wise to say that "According to a biorxiv paper" to precede it. Furthermore, the "preprint" has became an article in Academic OUP, where peer review is mandated in the submission process while the participant table along with supplementary data of the journal article is tucked away in a .zip file.

hockey39.ru link used is actually a deface page put by him (see the accompanied archive link), that was in turn used by Taiwan News article. As said before Taiwan News is a pretty reliable source except in some cases, where adding disclaimer type statements like "According to Taiwan News" is simply needed.

Even if Inquisitr is seen as not a good source for some editors, a CNBC source and that of Strait Times can be used to replace it; no need to throw the baby out with the water.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/05/north-korea-icmb-response-requires-us-muscle-chinese-cash-commentary.html

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/stage-a-buyout-to-end-kims-regime-the-nation-columnist

The removals, as a whole, reeked of whacking a mountain out of a molehill, and it's hard not to look at it at the user conduct dimension.45.136.197.235 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I was aware of what the Heise article said, which is why I said that While it's verifiable that Cyber Anakin's leak was included in the Dark Side of the Kremlin collection, how or why it is in there is not made clear. The verifiability issue for me (it might be different for Softlemonades) isn't that the data Cyber Anakin leaked was included, we can verify that per the Heise source, but why was that leak included? Is Cyber Anakin a member of Distributed Denial of Secrets? Or did they just include his leak as one of many within the Dark Side of the Kremlin collection? If it's the former, that Cyber Anakin is a member of the group, then the Heise article does not verify that. If it's the latter, then arguably it fails WP:COATRACK.

The unneeded text, while that may be your opinion that it should be left, it is contra to the WP:NPOV policy, as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a frankly not very notable part of Cyber Anakin's career. If you feel as though it is notable, then you'll need to provide more sources for it so that we can make sure we're covering it proportionally to how other reliable sources cover it. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't lead by publishing original research, it follows what other reliable sources say about a topic or individual.

Then the use of the bioRxiv papers in that way is arguably original research, and even if it is not, it is very clearly a primary source for that information. Again per the WP:NPOV policy, you'd need to provide secondary sources for that information, so that we can make sure we're covering it in proportion to how other reliable sources cover it. Was Cyber Anakin's contribution to that project noteworthy to anyone outside of the project?

If the hockey39.ru link was a page defaced by Cyber Anakin, then at best it's a primary source. As such that makes that entire section unsupported by secondary sources, and so it fails the verification policy.

Neither the CNBC source nor the Strait Times source appear to have any mentions of Anonymous, Cyber Anakin, the UN, or any sort of hack in their respective texts. Could you check please if you've linked the correct the correct articles, and if you have provide the short quote from each that supports the text removed from the article? To assist, the removed text from our article in this instance was Shortly after that it was further disseminated by the Anonymous hacking collective during their United Nations hack.

Please stop casting this as a mountain out of a molehill, or implying that content was removed by @Softlemonades: was carried out in bad fiath. The removals at this article by appear to have been in good faith, many of which I agree with. I would also like to remind you that assuming good faith in edits by other editors is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a spade is a spade. Furthermore, the "preprint" has became an article in Academic OUP where peer review is mandated in the submission process while the participant table along with supplementary data of the journal article is tucked away in a .zip file. On Neither the CNBC source nor the Strait Times source appear to have any mentions of Anonymous, Cyber Anakin, the UN, or any sort of hack in their respective texts, they are explanatory passage regarding a peace plan which the hacktivist is trying to push, and a new set of problems is bound to be created if those were removed, such as Template:Context. It's always okay for you to WP:Drop the stick if any or all of the removals prove overzealous.45.136.197.235 (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That one of the two preprints has now been published would somewhat address the WP:MEDRS issue, however the fact that Cyber Anakin's name only appears in the supplementary data does not address the WP:UNDUE issue. The question is, why is Cyber Anakin's contributions to those papers notable? That can only be answered by reliable secondary sources, that are independent of Cyber Anakin. Those sources have not been provided.

If the CNBC and Strait Times sources are to be used in the way that was previously in the article, then it presents both WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY issues. The claim that Shortly after that it was further disseminated by the Anonymous hacking collective during their United Nations hack is not supported by either of those sources, because neither CNBC nor the Strait Times contains any mentions of Anonymous, Cyber Anakin, the UN, or any sort of hack. To make this link ourselves is a synthesis and no-original research issue, that results in inherently unverifiable text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a nickel and dime, in fact constituting WP:Wikilawyering. This source has a passage that said the group had originally planned to hack the U.N. website to "propagate Dr. Shepherd Iverson's Korean peace plan along with cyber Anakin's expanded version into the agenda." However, he said the recent spotlight placed on Taiwan's exclusion from WHO, while the Wuhan virus epidemic spirals out of control, inspired the group to start advocating for Taiwan.45.136.197.235 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are convinced that Softlemonades removals were in bad faith, and/or that I'm exhibiting disruptive conduct by Wikilawyering, then my only recommendation is that you raise this at WP:ANI. I would ordinarily also recommend WP:AE as BLP edits are subject to discretionary sanctions, however IP editors and non-autoconfirmed editors are not allowed to file requests at that noticeboard. Otherwise, please cease making these baseless accusations of bad faith. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Now you are the one being dramatic and unreasonable. Instead of going through WP:DRN or WP:DRR first you went all the way up to WP:ANI. It's as if you are here to get involved in a WikiDrama one way or another when bored. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Part of the text in German at the Heise article as quoted here is a hyperlink to a 2016 VICE article covering his hack. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Since the beginning you accused me of "censorship" and bad faith in edit summaries and other places. I assume because Taiwan News so Taiwan so that was the "objectionable" material I was supposed to be removing? But if you explained I missed it. You also say my edits gave off "strange vibes" while ignoring the majority of the sources I challenged. Please reread WP:GOODFAITH to keep things kind and productive.
Stop pretending Taiwan News is WP:RSP. Its not, and I checked there before I challenged it. You say the RfC judged it as "quite reliable" so please point to the diff where it was closed and judged that way. By my count, there were seven votes for Option 1 (Generally reliable), nine votes for Option 2 (Marginally reliable or unclear), and one vote for Option 3 (Generally unreliable and too partisan for factual reporting). So not "quite reliable" but "marginally reliable". Again, point me to a diff if Im wrong
The Heise article doesnt actually say that Cyber Anakin was part of the Dark Side of the Kremlin, it just mentions Cyber Anakin and the article talks about other releases that definitely werent like the Integrity Initiative. That was why I challenged it, and the quoted text and translation doesnt seem to change that, but if I missed earlier text in the article that changes that then please point that out.

Softlemonades (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

4. I just saw that while you mentioning me here and discussing my edits without tagging me, you attempted to remove the notification about this discussion on my talk page left by another editor. Thats not ok. Canvassing others later makes it more of a choice.

No need to respond to this, just making it part of the record. Removal diff, Canvassing diff Softlemonades (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides counting the votes, the other important thing to note when assessing a consensus is the weight of the argument. Newslinger has said there that there's no reliability concerns that would take precedence over the news organizations guideline for Taiwan News and went on to reference Taiwan: Nation-State Or Province? (2019), published by Taylor & Francis:

Three English dailies also operated in Taiwan—China Post, Taipei Times and Taiwan News—though Taiwan News went to an online version only in 2010 and China Post did the same in 2017. China Post is pro-KMT; Taipei Times and Taiwan News are pro-DPP. Of the three, Taipei Times is the largest in terms of news coverage and commentary.

Copper, John Franklin (13 November 2019). Taiwan: Nation-State or Province?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-80831-9. Retrieved 6 February 2021 – via Google Books.

WP:NEWSORG stated that News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors), however in this case taking account of the 2021 RfC, WP:BIASEDSOURCES may be more appropriate instead, going that Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". To put it plain words, the solution is to use in-text attribution, which has already been used as "According to Taiwan News" when describing his revenge hack of Chinese systems like nuclear plants, agricultural interfaces and so on.

As said before, the Heise article was used to reference a passage describing the scope of the impact by Cyber Anakin's actions, namely the listing of his data leak into the Distributed Denial of Secrets collection. Sideswipe got it the other way believing that he was related to Distributed Denial of Secrets to explain why they cataloged the data leak.

In sensitive subject areas such as Russia/Ukraine, Armenia/Azerbaijan and Kurdish topics, vandal actions which involved the usage of vague summaries to evade anti-vandal patrol are so common. In most cases they are swiftly reverted or otherwise dealt with. It turns out that a ruling by the Arbitration Committee from 2006 held that It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. This (hopefully a) misunderstanding was further exacerbated upon a quick glance of your contributions showing that you had involved in edge-case behaviors in pages like WikiLeaks. To the best of my understanding, in many cases arguing with so-called "difficult editors" would be very counterproductive and turns into a full blown drama instead. Due to abundance of caution randomly picked an editor from the page history and get a "third opinion" to quickly resolve the issue and move on to edit other Ukraine-related topics. Honestly I hope I'm wrong about you.

To avoid such misunderstandings in the future, my two cents is that due diligence should have been used in the first place (such as tagging the offending passages with Template:Unreliable_source? or so on to garner wider input on before going bold).45.136.197.235 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

So no diff to point to, and you continue to call names and accuse me of things despite being warned about that at the ANI. The ANI also pointed out that the Arbcom ruling didnt mean what youre saying it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1112355586 Softlemonades (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry if I'm wrong about you. The following link is actually part of the long strings of WP:RSN archives, hence no diffs are able to be provided at this time because normally they don't carry over the diffs upon archiving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#RfC%3A_Taiwan_News

The following which is directly quoted from the RfC is of note though:

Since Taiwan News is a generically-worded name, detailed coverage is difficult to locate. I defer to use by other reliable sources: The China Post, The Diplomat, The New York Times (RSP entry), BBC (RSP entry), The Indian Express (RSP entry), The Washington Post (RSP entry), Al Jazeera (RSP entry), and Fortune have all cited content on Taiwan News without comment.

45.136.197.235 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah for the diffs you would have to go back to the Noticeboard and not the archive page, I think

But yeah that quote is part of the evidence people at the time considered. And then more of them decided it was "marginally" reliable than "generally" reliable, and none of them considered it on this topic which is often poorly covered and fact checked Softlemonades (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

They all concurred that Taiwan News had a strong bias against China, fitting the definition of WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which is what I've said earlier! In-text attributions are a good way to go.45.136.197.235 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Youre insisting on a finding that isnt there, and in text cites dont really help when most readers dont know and cant evaluate the "marginally reliable" source. The Wikipedia page isnt even going to help them with that. Softlemonades (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfection is frequently desired, but sometimes it can be enemy of good. At WP:ANI I had already mentioned what happened to German Wikipedia when they let the so-called "purging trolls" activity to go unchecked. The essays WP:BIKESHED and Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability comes to mind. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

One possible way would be to find sources describing Taiwan News' editorial slant against China in terms of COVID 19 and put it as the Controversies section on the news publication's article page. That way readers can at least get a hint and evaluate accordingly.45.136.197.235 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We dont write articles or cite sources based on future possibilities Softlemonades (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Been there, done that, by now.45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit, which aimed to ameliorate the side effect of making the article out of date was made by me which has the citation of Taiwan News and auxiliary citation of AsiaNews, the former so verbatim that a copyright release notice is featured at the top of here. I don't get it why you're insistent on removing these parts, even though it will come off as disruptive to most of us since the sources are fine by standards. It's as if WP:POINT is the true M.O. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, you might need to get refreshed on Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not, such as SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, SYNTH is not a rigid rule, SYNTH is not explanation, SYNTH is not just any synthesis, SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal, and SYNTH is not obvious II. Furthermore, WP:BLUESKY could apply, while all the CNBC and Strait Times sources do are only to provide further context on Shepherd Iverson's original peace plan.45.136.197.235 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

One more before a break, you believe that "why" and "how" is needed to put the Distributed Denial of Secrets passage, except you got it in the wrong order. The passage was meant to describe the impact, effects and scope of his data breach. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI, 45.136.197.235 (talk) invited me and four other people to this discussion; how we were chosen to be invited isn't immediately obvious to me. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have given an explanation here. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the OUP paper can be used for anything. I'm not sure whether we should be adding Cyber Anakin as a participant based solely in their mention in a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE but if they received special mention I guess we could consider it. But I do not find the name Cyber Anakin anywhere in the paper. And it's inappropriate to add Cyber Anakin as a participant in something based solely on inclusion of their name in a list of participants in the supplementary data of even a peer reviewed article. Clearly it's not something anyone cared about, even the authors of the paper, so nor do we. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on this matter, in fact his name was somewhere within an xlsx file, tucked in a zip file as "supplementary" at the OUP paper which would make it far harder to cite here because I don't think anybody has cited a zip file as references in all of Wikipedia, hence the OUP/biorxiv passage is going to be dropped. Seems fair as it's unlike the passages of Distributed Denial of Secrets and the Justin Bieber MacGuffin, which are wholly different beasts. Already I had made a partial restore to (re)include only the passages with Taiwan News citations that he hacked Chinese systems like nuclear plants and et cetera, and the hacking of five Russian sites in the wake of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. That alone should be a reasonable compromise if the consensus is against other tidbits as discussed here.45.136.197.235 (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

One last thing. The word "contentious" which is the first word of BLP warning mantra is up to question in terms of definition, so I'll defer to the essay Wikipedia:Contentious instead. As it goes, Perhaps recognising that articles are the sum of their parts is a valid course of action. Editors should view the "contentious claim" quite aside from the person whom it is attached to, and ask frankly whether they would have a problem with that edit being about their favourite (or least favourite) person in the world, without high quality reliable sourcing, as if "he leered at a cat" is equivalent to "the sky is blue" or "Paris is the capital of France".

Within the subject's associated subculture or the topical circle, hacking acts are seen as if they are like doing making arts or musics; even more so for hacktivists, a portmanteau for hacker and activist, unlike in others such as scientists, musicians, aviators, actors, elected officials in US and so on where "good character" of them is normally expected upon by readers and instead be seen as a abhorred stain of their career. There's a modicum of "every snowflake is unique" and pulling a one size fits all is sometimes the wrong approach just to put it. What's been discussed here can be said as mostly "penumbral issue". Within the topical field in general if you want an example of a more clear-cut BLP violation, that would be the claims of "faking a hack", or that they molested a girl, or revealing their real identity. Unless there is absolutely reliable source like BBC, the very latter should be subjected to the strict letters of BLP. To paraphrase Sideswipe, there is being cautious, and there is being unduly overcautious. Wikipedia risks losing credibility with the general public if we are not giving information about certain topics based on vague or exaggerated concerns.

Upon delving further it turns out that it's often easy to mistake something as a coatrack. As it goes, it would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. An article on the anatomical feature Adam's apple could explain that the term arose from the biblical character Adam; a regurgitation of the Book of Genesis, or an outline of the full story of original sin would not be necessary. Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack. Ultimately the passage about Justin Bieber is an explainer that Cyber Anakin had different ambitions, only to be affected by the war in Ukraine and shooting down of a plane. This is as long as Bieber didn't get sucked into Weinstein-level scandals to the effect of tarnishing anything else that have his name, in that case they can simply be re-removed, but until then it's mere WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I realize that it's better for me when working in quieter areas that abhor drama; this is often the case for many editors. Even though de jure an explicit consensus is needed before making changes or simply to retain contents, de facto this is mostly seen as cumbersome as they often practice something like "defensive driving" which you know if you took a driver's lesson. Despite the letter of the guidelines, usually when someone add or remove something and it was reverted, it's seen as a tacit approval if the bold editor didn't pursue further and moved on with the thumb of rule of a few rounds of activities in their contributions. At discussions in quiet areas, it can be interpreted as tacit "approval" or "whatever" if it results in a no consensus and changes/retentions contradicting the outcome are made thereafter without being reverted. After all WP:Wikipedia is in the real world and it's inevitable for those laid-back interactions to be here. Instead, demands on following the full discussion process may be seen as making a scene or even pest of themselves, which in time would scare away editors. Again a one size fits all would sometimes be counterproductive.

That is very opposite from perennial hot topics such as Gender/Sex and Race in which attentions, dramas and outrages are often the norm partly because those were so integral in the advancement of women rights and those of other minorities. Think of Susan B. Anthony, Stonewall and Rosa Parks.

It's normal for most editors to go out their beat and cross into other areas i.e. architecture to musics, but it's a bad thing if they fumble and made a scene reeking of WP:CIR.

I'll leave this up for a week and if there's no further comments, then the latest stable version of the article can very well be this one with the interesting summary of "cebap", let it slide and die down to move on, although there's still the temptation to re-add some okay-ish passages, particularly the Distributed Denial of Secrets content.45.136.197.235 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"I'll leave this up for a week and if there's no further comments"

This is still pending at ANI so putting a clock on it isnt ok, and you dont have consensus for anything yet. I havent edited since you raised all this and wont until the ANI is over. I dont think you should either since the ANI is about you and this page, but theres no rule about it.

But lemme be clear - theres no consensus, I object to several of your edits and Ive raised some of my concerns at the ANI. Softlemonades (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In light of your comment I would like to share this essay. While it provides a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these aren't supposed to be abused as a trump card to make the dispute to end in your favor; in fact this would go into the realms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As an information stale ANI discussions are automatically archived after a mere 72 hours of no comment. At BLP noticeboard it is a week, the same length the clock is set with.

The second paragraph of the essay states that facts are facts and so it's not a BLP violation to mention it with appropriate sourcing. In the case of marginally reliable sources it is often a standard practice to add in-text attribution. I don't know if you had carefully read all my arguments made so far, but if you did, then to put it bluntly your latest comment reeks of WP:IDHT because it didn't actually rebut the arguments and instead rehashing yours over and over again.

It's hard to fathom why you are so obsessed in removing these. Think of it as a thorn apple; it won't hurt you as long as you don't hold it in your hand. Wikipedia really isn't expected to be truly perfect and it is often advised against using Wikipedia itself as sources. There was a user TenPoundHammer who went on to overzealously tag anything for deletion but eventually was topic banned despite "acting out of good faith". Continuing to hold on to that can be even seen as WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, which is very much abhorred upon. You can start another thread on WP:RSN on Taiwan News, although I suspect that it will end up pretty much with the same results as 2021 RfC.

One of the reasons why I've said WP:NOTCENSORED is because it isn't really clear how this is not censorship any less than if we decided to remove the pictures of religious figures like Mohammed or the Bahá'u'lláh due to overly pedantical concerns. There's also the danger of perpetuating systematic bias if you had your way. Don't solve a problem by making two of them.

Regardless, just wanting to break the deadlock and hoping to bring this to a speedy close, as Nick Moyes which was originally pinged upon isn't really available, subject field expert SMcCandlish has been invited to comment, give advice and work together here on the matter.45.136.197.235 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"these aren't supposed to be abused as a trump card to make the dispute to end in your favor"

Youre the one trying to make it end before the ANI is over. All Im saying is wait for the admins. No one else is trying to make it end. Softlemonades (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Making the declaration "I'll leave this up for a week and if there's no further comments, then the latest stable version of the article can very well be this one with the interesting summary of "cebap", let it slide and die down to move on" is kinda the opposite of how we determine consensus on Wikipedia. As with Softlemonades, I'm holding off on any edits to the article until the ANI thread sees a resolution, due to the conduct issues raised there.

As for article content, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by EEng, that there is a significant amount of unencyclopaedic and meaningless cruft that can and must be trimmed from this article, some of which has already been identified here and yet restored to the article despite objections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Unencyclopaedic and meaningless cruft" is itself an epitome of elitism. In fact instead of just trimming the crufts, Softlemonades had at one point went so far to delete passages stating that he hacked Chinese systems and five Russian websites, by wholesale. It was TenPoundHammer-level surrreal.

By that reasoning, a lot of popular culture is, can be dismissed with that description as well. Sorry, but labeling knowledge like that's POV. How important or good something is, is up to the reader, not to us all as Wikipedia. Ultimately, the core ambition of Wikipedia is to describe the world, and let the readers think and have the opinions about it.

The wheels will just keep spinning for eternity unless we can agree on how to cover the fact of Cyber Anakin hacking Chinese systems and five Russian websites, even if it meant barebones, while noting that standard approaches in handling marginal sources involves in-text attribution. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually how important something is, is up to what reliable sources say about our subject. If something has no RS talking about it, we don't include it per WP:V and WP:RS. If something has only one or a couple of RS talking about it, then we need to assess it for WP:WEIGHT in order to be compliant with WP:NPOV. If the content is fringe, or majority non-noteworthy then per WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE we do not include it. That's de rigueur how we handle every article on this site. If you or any editor want to write a compelling narrative, including small details that most if not all sources consider inconsequential, then there are a multitude of other wikis available that cater to those needs. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record and as far as I can see, previous editors had secured a copyright release from Taiwan News so that they can closely paraphrase or even quote their texts, particularly the one about Chinese nuclear power plants and the five Russian websites. There is very little huff-puffing and bloating in those passages as far as being concerned; it's as if they're directly lifted from the news source.45.136.197.235 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

To paraphrase the WP:VNOT policy, just because we can include a piece of content does not mean that we must include it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. What if text In 2022 according to Taiwan News, he had contracted COVID-19 and under five days long "Operation Wrath of Anakin: No Time to Die", hacked Chinese computer systems which included government websites, agricultural management systems, coal mine safety interfaces, nuclear power plant interfaces, and satellite interfaces, as acts of retaliation. and the section "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is merged to become In 2022 according to Taiwan News, he had contracted COVID-19 and under five days long "Operation Wrath of Anakin: No Time to Die", hacked Chinese computer systems which included government websites, agricultural management systems, coal mine safety interfaces, nuclear power plant interfaces, and satellite interfaces, as acts of retaliation. Besides that, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine occurred, Cyber Anakin defaced five Russian websites as member of decentralized hacking collective Anonymous.?

Since you brought up multitude of other wikis I want to say that there's also Simple English Wikipedia which could cater to your need or liking as simplistic presentation is a must there, hence creating the best of both worlds. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. What if we wait for the ANI to finish? And then decide whether or not to use Taiwan News? Because your declaration of how to solve that problem isnt consensus and you saying the RfC decided it was "quite reliable" when it didnt (there was no close, it had more votes for "marginally reliable" than anything else) isnt helping.

So what if we wait for the ANI to finish? And then we go from there? Remember an admin at the ANI criticized your rushing on this. I can get you the diffs if you need, or bring this back up over there.

We both said wed let the admins take it from there in the ANI so why not wait for them? Softlemonades (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wasteful of time if you wait for ANI to finish before discussing about Taiwan News, rather than solving these as simultaneously as possible?

WP:WHENCLOSE provides that if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion. The 2021 RfC was a snowball consensus that it's marginally reliable, instead of "no consensus" or contested.45.136.197.235 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You now saying it was snowball consenus that it was "marginally reliable" makes you saying the RfC decided it was "quite reliable" before more weird and makes me want to wait for the ANI even more before making any decision with you on this article because the ANI is about your beahvior and this is one of those points

And like I said, an admin at the ANI didnt like your rush on this so I dont think the "waste of time" point is a good one either or a reason to not wait for the ANI Softlemonades (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There were 9 votes for "marginally reliable" with 7 votes as a runner up that it's "reliable". Note some if not most of the votes are "either way" which consist of "option 1 or 2". At best it's reliable and at worst "marginally reliable" to be exact. If abundance of caution is applied then it's the latter, which can normally be fixed by adding in-line attributions. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I counted the either way votes as both options. But is it Snowball "marginally reliable" like you said two posts ago, "quite reliable" like you said at the start or "at best reliable and at worst marginally reliable" like you just said, which leaves out the other vote for a worse option? You cant decide and going from "it was decided as quite reliable" to "it was snowball marginally reliable" is weird. And your constant pushing to push it through while admins have an open discussion is weird. This shouldnt be that urgent, just let the ANI finish, and then we can resume.

Until then I dont think we should be doing edits other than copyedits like fixing typoes Softlemonades (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. Also I noticed that your have a poor understanding of English language, which might make you miss out on understanding complex aphorisms and so on. You might need to work on that too, although it's my bad for characterizing the 2021 RfC as saying it "quite reliable" before I re-read it.45.136.197.235 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Consensus does not require unanimity." Right and the majority was "marginally reliable"

"although it's my bad for characterizing the 2021 RfC as saying it "quite reliable"" Yeah and starting the discussion off with misleading statements, intentionally or not, that push for something that you keep pushing for while theres an ANI open about your behavior, that you seem unwilling to wait on, some of it you snuck back into the article, intentionally or not, without an edit summary as a "dummy edit", that you tried to put a clock on, that you keep canvassing for, that you assumed bad faith on my part for - thats a lot and it makes me wanna wait for the ANI even more Softlemonades (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"The wheels will just keep spinning for eternity"

Or until the ANI is over and then we can go from there Softlemonades (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Around 7,000 words of discussion or 18 pages in a letter-sized document with Arial font 11. Wow. I am fascinated by this talk page treatises. I am sure there are editors who would gladly analyze this discussion to determine a summary and render a resolution. But most editors would walk away in an instant though. I have to mention that you guys still are midway of reaching the 14,000 level of an epic by User:Bookku. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment of regret: @Thinker78, I am pretty bemused, What kind of cheerful comment is this? If you find any reply to be very long just can request for a synopsis.

Are you not resorting to stereotyping with loaded label for appealing to ridicule with purpose to discredit fellow Wikipedian; citing unrelated incidence from unrelated article? How this behavior helpful to this discussion?

You are bringing me in , a user, who is not related to this discussion, with a loaded label. In 20 plus years of Wikipedia am I the only long reply writing user to bite, hound and defame me in such unhelpful manner. I am being respectful to the users, do not hold any grudge against you, I do not get point in biting and hounding any fellow Wikipedian in this manner. I regret I had to reply to such comment carrying little relevance to discussion on this talk page. Bookku (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: @Bookku: Please calm down. Since y'all are already here we'll be thankful for a lot if you can help us to break the spinning wheel and render some kind of resolution.

I'll summarize the timeline of the editorial conflict here as best as I can, although some pertinent points may be left out and personal opinions may be included. Complimentary page history in case I missed anything since this is still gonna be a longcat.

Softlemonades removed a large corpus of passages in sequence (1, 2 and 3, saying that they are "Fails verification", "Removed unneeded text" and "Removed unreliable sources and poorly sourced or unsourced information".
I have a feed of pages in my watch, mostly related to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and this was no exception. After noticing the changes it immediately struck as an overzealous removal, likely bordering on disruption/vandalism as happened with many other war pages. I looked at Softlemonades' contrib history for a glance and saw that he's did it before on Wikileaks article and madeangry talkspace edit summary. Those were deemed as red flags for disruptors/trolls/vandals. Defcon level goes up to 2.
The corpus of contents were then restored in sequence by me. Spooked by Softlemonade's claim that Taiwan News is non-reliable I went to search for WP:RSN archives and found a 2021 RfC with the snowball consensus of marginally reliable, although back then I judged it as "quite reliable" because "reliable" votes are the runner up while looking at the strength of the arguments. Taiwan News is one of the major English language newspaper in Taiwan, alongside China Post (since closed down) and Taipei Times. The judgement used by Softlemonades was little too skewed towards Euro-American perspective; he later admitted that he wasn't aware of the 2021 RfC.
Sure, Taiwan News made some biased claims against China when covering COVID, but again it's a paragon of virtue of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS to assume that it must be depreciated solely because of that. Are we gonna throw the baby with the water? New York Times didn't retract Walter Duranty's pieces extolling USSR and denying Holodomor, but did the same standard apply to them? By the way when I reverted him, Seeing that it was just another page in "quiet zone" in terms of frequency of edits so I expected him to either follow the BRD cycle, or rather move on. Suddenly Sideswipe9th (yes, it's a homage to a Transformers figure) "swiped" in like a ninja and undo all my edits.
Frankly for a moment they seemed as if they were tag teaming. Nonetheless I reverted her again stating that the onus to discuss was on Softlemonade's pursuant to BRD, while stating that his removal has created more problems (such as making the article out of date). Accordingly, warning templates against disruptive editing were issued, with the further implication of WP:AN3 or WP:AIV should they continue doing that.
Sideswipe "cried BLP", asking me to "self-revert" while invoking WP:BLPRESTORE. Sure there is such as rule and I wasn't aware so I acted accordingly, while saying that I will switch to "third opinion" format, with an admin Nick Moyes actually who edited it in the past, chosen by random. At first she nodded and asked me to invite her to the discussion, with further comments regarding BLPRESTORE.
Then she backpedalled by inviting Softlemonades into this discussion. It's a telltale bad faith negotiation. That's when it starts to go wrong become a drama despite my wishes. Due to WP:DNFTT I had to skirt it a bit and reverted her invitation, in two because of filters. She then restored it again.
Seeing that they are trying to get away with minority rule by gaming the process, like what the SCOTUS did with guns and Roe, I had to expand the invitee pool, this time semi-randomly, picking those who are in the relevant Wikiproject or had otherwise involved with the page. They are Cambial Yellowing, Deku-shrub, GorillaWarfare, Scope creep and I dream of horses. The talkspace activity in WikiProject Computer Security looks stale enough; you can even see a notice that it is "semi-active" on its main page, making it impractical to "follow the process" as they would later emphasize.
Sideswipe goes into "wikilawyer" mode which I rebutted, saying that it's guaranteed to generate a WikiDrama given his tendentious editing, so there's a reason to make it an ad-hoc "third opinion" discussion in the first place. WP:IAR exists for multitude of reasons; one of which is to prevent abuse of process to disrupt Wikipedia with things like dramas, pointy stuff, vandalism and so on. There's process, but there's also practicality.
Back to this talk page again. Now the sources and passages undergoes nickel and dime. Two polar opposite meta-level views are at play, fueled by synergies upon synergies. It'll be very exhaustive to list the diffs, but as you can see at the top part of this discussion. They were alleging that some are primary sources, one is a bioarxiv preprint, some may not fit WP:DUEWEIGHT, and some are otherwise "unreliable" and WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, all the while brought up an unrelated past case of "nested archives". As response, I had made clear that they were "MacGuffins", it will disruptive the overall narrative flow if removed (see WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, WP:WEASEL and Template:Context). and they even misintepreted the intentions or meaning of some passages, such as that of a Heinz Heise source meant to describe the lasting effects and scope of Cyber Anakin's KM.ru and Nival leaks, namely that the leaks ended up indexed by Distributed Denial of Secrets, and there are exceptions to SYNTH which I'm sure applies within this case. They really did fit the proverb of "making a mountain out of the molehill"; or picking the bones out of the egg. I'll never forget the impression that Sideswipe's out of the place as she is GENSEX editor and this topic is far out of her beat. Think of fumbling while editing about animals when someone's too involved in cars instead.
Either way, it doesn't feel right to solve a problem by making two so I restored the passages, specifically about his hack of Chinese SCADA systems. This time she dared me to start an ANI thread while simply issuing a 3RR warning. There at first a calm, so I took time to focus on contents by making small fixes, ditto and talking more about the Heise.
That calm? It was only calm before the storm. Despite my wishes, such as going to WP:BLPN at max, she skipped these intermediate stages altogether and went to ANI. Other editors like Nil Einne chimed in, started a thread on WP:BLPN accordingly, while making some fixes like removing Twitter-cited DOB (the subject of the unrelated "nested archives" past case), the Meduza-cited passage and MOS:OVERLINK, though I reverted the middle because it actually disrupted the narrative, namely the effect of his hacks. With help of Nil Einne, we were able to agree on the removal of things like biorxiv preprints, the primary sources (hacker's deface page which was in turn corroborated by Taiwan News). The fact about his hack of Chinese SCADA systems and five Russian websites remains.
At that point Softlemonades responded and goes over the fact about his hack of Chinese SCADA systems and five Russian websites. I might skip it for fear of making this into a soapbox, just that there were lots of back and forths, such as that taking removalism to the extreme is harmful while the page is far from being "too long", me apologizing to him after learning about the mistake of him being "difficult editor", and stating that a 2006 ArbCom ruling found removals of well-sourced text like that of Softlemonades disruptive.
Concurrently, there's also a dispute on what constitutes "significant change". While removing about 2/3 of the originally targeted corpuses is sufficient for me (based on char count), it's not for them. Eventually Softlemonades seemingly got fed up, preferring with "leave it to the admins".
There's hope that the drama could lapse and provide speedy resolution, except it's not. Softlemonades re-upped his challenge, continuing to pick a bone on my initial slight misintepretation of 2021 RfC consensus while Sideswipe implored the admins to intervene, playing the victim that they can't "improve" the article as freely as possible. There were accusations of canvassing, although it's as overhyped as the rest because interestingly enough I got a message asking me to test Vector 2022; by their standards is "canvassing" also. My reaction? Happy to do that.
So we're now here. Upon seeing Sideswipe's implore for "intervention", and after she asked me and others to go to a different wiki which caters to our needs, I put something rebutting that people might want to stay on one stop because many other sites might contain zero day viruses and it's a greater risk for readers to hop between sites to learn about something, before walking her through a thought experiment where she is suddenly the only editor and modify the article as her preference, and put the results back through a sandbox diff link. As of now there is no response yet. Maybe she's working on that. Maybe she's blinked. Either way, just before you two came here, Softlemonades said that the consensus of 2021 RfC of Taiwan News points to "marginally reliable". It's a good start. Now the next step is how to navigate that, although standard procedures usually involve in-text attribution and corroboration in the form of simultaneous citation of more reliable sources. Ultimately from a bigger picture this is just another epitome of the clashes between different editing and presentation philosophies.

45.136.197.235 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"stating that a 2006 ArbCom ruling found removals of well-sourced text like that of Softlemonades disruptive." As Ive pointed out to you at least once, the ANI made clear you were misinterpreting that ruling. You shouldnt leave that part out of your summary, its an odd look.

Please stop making accusations such as "Seeing that they are trying to get away with minority rule by gaming the process"

"my initial slight misintepretation of 2021 RfC consensus" The difference between "quite reliable" and "snowball marginally reliable" is more than slight but ok

"saw that he's did it before on Wikileaks article" If you read the talk page, youd see the issue was quickly solved, and I wasnt removing content I was replacing it with something more specific. When there was an objection, I let the editor include both. And as I explained, the angry comment was due to Cambial's past behavior towards me. Another thing left out. Softlemonades (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Bookku, do not get upset. I didn't try to ridicule you. In fact, as I stated, I am fascinated by this long talk page discussions. I tried to simply highlight your epic discussion and show you this. I thought you might have been interested. Thinker78 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for everyone's reference the block of old IP was because of WP:NOPROXIES rather than conduct. I'm from China and had to use VPNs by a lot, and that policy has been of great inconvenience to many because many vandals from western countries abused it a lot. I think there was one such who inserts actual ORs into Disney articles for more than 13 years so much that those pages are protected to this day.

Looking at the grave dancing just below this section, they're gonna get away with WP:POVRAILROAD this time. In fact more often than not give 'em an inch and they'll go for a mile. But there's also the risk of Streisand effect; the article subject is an Anonymous member and it isn't that Anonymous hasn't done it before.

Ultimately the best of both worlds would be forking. I think that Meta-Wiki had said somewhere that alternative namespaces could serve fit for the purpose; even though Simple English Wikipedia, which is so ideal for reductionists/minimalists, is so underutilized. If they went through the article rewrite you'll still free to weigh in on that. Cheers! 8.243.113.50 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

But there's also the Streisand effect; the article subject is an Anonymous member and it isn't that Anonymous hasn't done it before. To paraphrase Mace Windu, are you threatening us ~~Master Jedi~~ IP editor? Or perhaps you could briefly explain what you mean by this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time y'all will take an inch for a mile, while the clash of synergistic currents continues unabated. Seen it a hundred times. Here's a two cent prognosis. Take an example. TenPoundHammer took reductionism/minimalism to the extreme like it's like Icarus going to the sun, so much that they finally had enough of him. He has the template on his page that "he reserves the right to screw up", but that doesn't do much. More recent would be the Fram controversy; not really addition/reductionism related, but ya'll came very close to imploding. It's a miracle that most of the world were too enmeshed of the protests in Hong Kong; otherwise there'd be a few, if not hundreds, of forks now, rather than a monolith monopoly took for granted, or so many eggs in a basket. Tides are forever, but sandcastles aren't. 31.192.235.50 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This deliberate turn away from leaving determinations up to the reader, matches the mindlessness earlier with Yuri Gagarin. Labeling knowledge like it's POV instead of allowing readers to decide who really flew in space first. Meanwhile discussion here hinges on my use of proxies instead of focusing on readers. So what if I've used proxies. The article needs to cover fact of Cyber Anakin's activities lest readers look elsewhere.

So it's not a threat it's a fact. I have unlimited proxies and we are legion, your efforts to game the process and control these pages with your clique will fail, and every elitist step taken merely hastens the day.

31.192.235.50 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You accuse us of gaming the process while admitting to socks and threatening "unlimited" socks by proxies? wow Softlemonades (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, old good IP editor here. The IP ranges I've used has now been hijacked by a bad actor. The downsides of using open VPNs is anyone can use its IP given the right program. For the service I'm using I guess there could be hundreds if not thousands who might overlap these and that IPs. They can simply click "Contributions" at the top right to see what they or others had done. Notthing could be ruled out so far; it could be a simple case of trolls finding out the contribs and adding fuel to it "for fun", or maybe she's pulling a Count Dooku because she's rushing too, not helped by the fact that she now displays some unusual unusual technical knowledge like using the specialized IOT search engine Shodan. If you want some "intervention", it's as good as an all out WP:BOOMERANG in all directions and "actually leaving it to the admins" by admin-only page editing protection. I think I have to drop the stick for now and wait out until the wind blows over. Cheers! 185.70.92.9 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was invited to this discussion.[1] That is just weird, as I have never even heard of Cyber Anakin. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry about that. There's been a proxy jumping IP editor who has been doing canvassing like that for the last week or so. Still not sure how they're picking who they invite to this discussion. Feel free to ignore it if you want. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

PMJI, I'm not from around here, but I may be able to offer some insight. Essentially this is reddit drama which has now strayed into the staid environs of Wikipedia. A lot of it is taking place in private forums through pms and also off-reddit so I don't know all the details, and frankly don't care to know. Short version thckrthnbwlofoatmeal got involved in Wikipedia some years ago eventually became overly invested/obsessed and started harassing people elsewhere for things that happened on wikipedia using throwaway accounts. Eventually deleted their account after claiming to be on death's door and posted a note claiming to have died on conservapedia, but as is so common on reddit the faking of one's own death was painfully obvious.

Anyway some background available at r/MarkMyWords [2].

This was all a few years back, but they've been bouncing around subreddits and using pms to ask for help sometimes with detailed instructions. It's probably going on various other spots around the web. A lot of time what happens is instead of helping people will instead reference you to someone else who will do what you want, which is probably what's happening here, and may also explain requests you've seen on reddit or elsewhere.

Most commonly I think it's done with good intent to use for crowdsourcing. Take for example this IP. It's accessible to anyone with the proper password which is easily available if you know who to pm. This is a workaround because IIUC wikipedia automatically disallows shared accounts through some software tool so you need to configure your browser's proxy settings so you can all use the same logged out IP. There's a miniproject which includes detailed instructions and even links to the rules for many specific projects on how to rank e.g. [3] [4]. Seems silly to me but who am I to judge how people spend their time.

Problems emerge when someone tries to do something without instructions of course, but so long as someone is watching they can be quickly corrected. So I don't know who decided to add auto-archiving everywhere but according to a source I trust that's a bad idea that needs to be corrected, and being my helpful self I came over here to fix it, and saw this. My wiki skills are quite weak, so I just used the undo button perhaps some useful changes were lost, but at least everyone is no worse off than before.

So while as a mod I don't have issue with people doing this in general, I do believe the spreading of drama as is being done here should be strictly forbidden. Unfortunately, standards vary wildly between subreddits, and many private forums explicitly exist to spread drama. Anyway, I can only help tidy my own little universe but it is what it is. I guess I'm starting to ramble.

tl;dr it's drama and far too many mods tolerate it. 217.28.41.156 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The topic of this article is about someone who's involved in dark arts and politics, so there's gonna be a lot of vested interest here. Emotions tend to run very high and you can't do nothing about it.

Since this talk page has gotten so long and became hard to read, it's a standard procedure to tidy things up by archiving this page. Therefore I had initially reverted part of your changes, although I had changed since the very first section contains article's previous iterations. It might be preferable to do a cut-and-paste archive of certain sections in the long run as the quarrels have become too much meta and this page should be purely about content issues.

As I said there are lots of vested feelings and interests involved here. Sure the /r/markmywords guy is supposedly dead but it's also commonplace for others to pick things up and perpetuate to their own end, political or not. In fact there were two article iterations about this topic before, one by the markmywords guy and the other by student editor Treasure Lynn, current one being a lazy combining of the two. Wikipedia is different from the rest in that even the small bores can get worked up so much, the same Taiwan News you all discussed here now reported that there is a silly edit war about Taiwan whether it's country or not.

Seeing that Sideswipe9th and Softlemonades are still gaming the process, I have expanded the invitee pool, so the discussion is more balanced. Invites have been sent to Dhawk790, Eclipsed830, EvergreenFir, Jclemens, Newslinger, The Four Deuces, Illegitimate Barrister, EchetusXe, Super Dromaeosaurus, Horse Eye Jack, J 1982, PseudoSkull, and Ne0Freedom. Neutral notices have been left at WikiProject Countering systemic bias and WikiProject Taiwan. Since this is disclosed it's not canvassing.

This is a meta conflict between different school of thoughts on how to write an encyclopedia. I cannot really see how this is resolved amicably soon. You see it as helpful informative content which others thinks a "junk". You see it as cleanup while it's censorship or systematic bias for others. Marginally reliable text is okay for many if there is inline attribution or cite a safer extra source, but not for some. It's even worse if international politics is involved, keep or add means you're "US imperialism supporter" and if you trim or remove means you're "pro-Russia" or "pro-China". You might had never known about this before but for some in parts of the world like Ukraine, Hong Kong and so on it's an icon. By "some" I mean pro-democratic activists, Star Wars fanboys or hacker circles. Maybe the women's chess at Russia as well because Anakin helped exposed a predator. Too many shades of grey.

Banning dramas sounds good but it can become a cliche to hide serious problems until it's too late like Monkey's Paw. In the end Wikipedia might have to embrace blockchain decentralised model since there's too much differences. Finally this is a proxy IP too, accessible even with a browser extension. 185.210.127.72 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Starting over

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments2 people in discussion

Since the IP editor has been banned, I guess we should start over. Hopefully itll be easier to focus without the long rambling bits.

To be brief my issues are:

That Taiwan News is "marginally reliable" according to the RfC and hacking is kinda a specialist beat, so I dont think we should use them

I dunno why Gold Coast Bulletin would be considered a reliable but Im happy to listen

Things like the hockey site are primary sources

I dont think Heise said Cyber Anakin was part of that release, just that he was listed on their site

We can still wait for the ANI, but I dont think its an issue anymore since it was about IP editors conduct. Correct me if Im wrong, I wont argue. Softlemonades (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that we should really look into doing a section by section re-write. As was mentioned at the ANI thread, the article is in a pretty bad state and there's a fair amount of content that we should trim. To that end, we probably want to grab a list of sources that are currently in the article, filter out any that are unreliable or very low quality, and preform a search to see if there are any other relevant high quality sources to use. Once we have that list, we can start looking at structuring the content into a more coherent biography of Cyber Anakin's noteworthy actions over the last 4-8 years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea. I just tried copying and pasting them but lost the links when I did. Will come back to it later Softlemonades (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've made two lists below, hidden by {{cot}} tags to prevent this page from looking absurdly longer. First list is the sources already in the article, grouped by their reliability as listed at WP:RSP or in WP:RSN archives. I've also separated out the primary sources for obvious reasons, the two books and the two non-English sources due to the verifiability issues they present.

Second list contains sources that are not in the article, but mention Cyber Anakin in some form. Again grouped by reliability and access concerns. I've tried to add every source I could find, but I can't rule out missing any, particularly so for non-English language sources. Feel free to add to the second list if you find any sources I've missed. Once we're sure we've got the bulk if not all of the sources currently published on Cyber Anakin, we can then look at re-drafting the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Very helpful! The grouping looks good.

I think we should start by reverting IP editors stealth re add and removing the unreliable sources you identified from the article and see what it looks like then, what still has sources, etc Softlemonades (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I'm somewhat more tempted to start afresh. Instead of trying to bring the existing content in line with the sources and using it for structure, we instead go for a clean slate and use the reliable sources as the starting point. It'll take a little longer, but I think we'd have a better article as a result. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay so going through the list, "The RSA takeaway". POLITICO is just a summary of the Motherboard article. "Teen 'Cyber Anakin' hacker wants revenge on Russia after the MH17 crash". news.com.au "Security News This Week: WhatsApp Is Caught in Its Own Crypto War in Brazil". Wired. and "Cyber Anakin" wants MH17 revenge". Perth Now are also re reportings of the Motherboard article. I think these are basically Wikipedia:ITSTERTIARY and if so we can include them as citations but I dont wanna rely on them more than the Motherboard article

That leaves IranWire, BBC, ZDNet and a passin mention in Asian News International Softlemonades (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My attempt to summarize what those four sources say:

BBC: Cyber Anakin saw that a state run North Korean website linked to the wrong Twitter account, and took advantage by registering the account and using it to troll the North Korean government. BBC calls Cyber Anakin an "online prankster", Anakin calls it a "prank" and the article cites the North Korean website. BBC points out the Twitter account couldnt be seen inside North Korea. BBC mentions Cyber Anakin claimed to hack a website, but doesnt verify.

ZDNet: ZDNet describes Cyber Anakin as a protestor who left messages on TVs with no password protection. 3,100 TVs were vulnerable, but he only effected a few of them briefly. It also mentions he opened two Twitter accounts repeating his North Korea prank.

Asian News International: Makes a passing mention of "Cyber Anakin's five-day hack into Chinese computer systems, including nuclear power plant interfaces" but doesnt explain

IranWire: Cyber Anakin talks briefly about his motives targeting Iran, how his defacements work, and says his Twitter spoofings arent attacks in the traditional sense.

Did I leave anything out? Softlemonades (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

At least for having something on the reliable sources it looks good. I'm going to read through them all shortly and see what we can datamine from them.

In the meantime it'd be good to check if there's any sources I've missed when searching yesterday, particularly circa 2016, that'd cover Anakin's earliest exploits. Also getting good translations of the six non-English sources would be helpful, as they may have covered stuff the English language sources did not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's my analysis from all of the sources known so far, both presently used in the article and new.

Reliable:

IranWire - Short interview about Anakin's actions against Iranian government targets circa 2020. Has also some answers on Hong Kong and Korea. Might be useful for ABOUTSELF content, but it's mostly on hacking stuff which can be controversial so...maybe not.
news.com.au - Has some factual reporting, can use it to verify hacks caused as a result of MH17, and that targets were chosen randomly. Could also paraphrase the motivations bit; consequentialist, and only cared about public shock amongst Russians
Perth Now - This is the exact same article as news.com.au. Not useful.
Politico - Can be used to verify the targeting of Russian websites, but defers to a Motherboard article. Not really that useful.
Wired - Another paragraph on the Motherboard article. With the use by others, we could consider the Motherboard piece reliable?
BBC - Describes Anakin as an "online prankster". Verifies that they impersonated a North Korean school via a typo in an official website. Has brief paragraph on motivation that may be helpful.
ZD Net - Information on a web connected TV attack, as a result of Article 13. Has some choice quotations we might include.
Asian News International - Has a sentence on a five day hack Anakin engaged in against China, and explicitly links Anakin to Anonymous. But Anakin's involvement in the CCP website hack is left otherwise unstated. Can't verify that Anakin was a member of this attack from this piece.

Marginally reliable:

Taiwan News, April 2022 - has some info on an attack against Russia on April 11. Includes unverified claim that Anakin was suffering from Covid when he attacked the Chinese websites (can source this attack to Asian News International). Has some info on various solutions to something, but exacty what this is for is unclear.
Motherboard, Vice - Has the same "consequentialist" motivation that were also reported by news.com.au. Confirms two of Anakin's 2016 targets via attributed statement from Troy Hunt.
Taiwan News, May 2022 - Similar issues to the Asian News International source, confirms Anonymous defaced a CCP website, but does not make Anakin's involvement in this clear, other than the allusion to Anakin's prior 5 day hack.
Pime Asia News - Verbatim copy of the May 2022 Taiwan News article. Doesn't add anything new.
Techworm - Another piece about the 2016 MH17 related attacks. Same consequentialist quotations. Doesn't appear to add anything new.
Cyber Security Connect - As with the other sources on the CCP website hack, Anakin's exact role in this is left unstated. We can't verify that Anakin took part in this attack from this source.

Non-English sources, read via Google Translate:

Meduza - Anakin does not appear to be the central target of this article. Where Anakin is mentioned, it refers to a Reddit post by Anakin announcing "Operation Wrath of Anakin". This does verify Anakin's involvement in identifying a serial harasser who targeted chess players.
RTVI - Supports the Meduza source, contains some of the same content, and restates the link between Anakin and the indentifying of a serial harasser.
Open - Another piece about the CCP website hack. Same issues as prior sources, does not state Anakin's direct involvement.
Pime Asia News - Verbatim copy of the May 2022 Taiwan News article, except this time in Italian!
Newtalk - Another piece about the CCP website hack. Same issues as prior sources, does not state Anakin's direct involvement.
CNMedia - Mostly about geopolitics, has two small paragraphs on Anonymous, with the same content about the CCP website hack. No direct mention of Anakin's involvement in this attack.

Books:

Stop North Korea! - No content mentioning Cyber Anakin as far as I can tell. Not useful, except perhaps to verify the book exists.
Cyberterrorism, Erin McCoy - Appears to have a mention of Cyber Anakin on page 7, but no preview exists on Google books. Will need a WP:REREQ made if neither of us have access to it.

Unfortunately this leaves us with a problem. There's not a lot to go on, and certainly nothing that supports an article of the length we currently have. There's some unsourced content in the Early History subsection, including a quotation from Anakin and some of his early motivations that aren't mentioned in any sources. On the whole, unless there's more sources that we've missed, then at best I think we're going to have something no longer than a stub, with some brief mentions of involvements in a handful of hacks between 2016 and 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you think itll meet WP:GNG? Softlemonades (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I was actually just looking at that. I think that because of the 2016 Motherboard article, 2018 BBC news piece, and the 2020 IranWire interview we just barely squeak over the GNG line. But it's super marginal, and I could also see an AfD deleting the article anyway. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Without seeing the new stub yet I think Id lean towards doing an AfD, especially since the IranWire interview doesnt have much content and the Motherboard article is borderline and the BBC article is "look at the online prank" but Im ok with going with your judgment.

As a first step Im gonna clear the article of junk so itll be easier to imagine what itll look like, and then I guess we can finish blowing it up start rewriting things? Softlemonades (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay went through it and cut its size in half just getting rid of junk. It still needs rewrites, but it should be a little easier to figure out what it might look like and in the meantime the page isnt as bad for those few readers that do come across it.

Feel free to re add anything I took out if you think it was too much. If you wanna do a total revert and leave it until were done and move edits to a sandbox or a draft page that also works for me, but the work in progress helps me visualize things and like I said I figured getting rid of junk would help readers for now. But this isnt a priority page so whatever works Softlemonades (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a good trim. It's gotten rid of a lot of the unsourced (potentially OR) content. There's some copy edits I'll try to make tomorrow, finding the right words are difficult tonight! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, over five edits I've made a copy-edit pass over the content, rewording and adding specificity to some sections, and removing some redundancies and possible speculative content. One trim I'd like to get a second opinion on is the removal of the sentence about Twitter availability in North Korea. It felt somewhat tacked on to the prior sentences, and looked odd handing without any references. Is there perhaps a way we can naturally work that into the prose of the rest of the content? If we can, we may also want to Wikilink it to Internet in North Korea for related content as to the scope and reasoning behind the ban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also just to note, the IP wasn't blocked for any behavioural issue. They were included as part of a rangeblock on an open proxy that they were using. As such they may still return to this article at some point, under a different IP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just going through the article history and theyre at least the fourth IP editor blocked for being an open proxy. I hope the admins consider the page protection suggestion Softlemonades (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In this comment, 84.54.13.148 confirms theyre the same editor as 2800:a8:a01:a1:35c0:a77e:d72e:23e3 by referencing the April 12 2022 edits that secured the Taiwan News copyright permissions, so theyre the reason they were used as sources in the first place Softlemonades (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

List of sources currently in the article, grouped by reliability

Generally reliable sources:

Batebi, Ahmad. "Interview with an Outraged, Grief Stricken Hacktivist". IranWire. Archived from the original on July 22, 2021. Retrieved February 17, 2020.
"Teen 'Cyber Anakin' hacker wants revenge on Russia after the MH17 crash". news.com.au. March 5, 2016. Archived from the original on February 20, 2017. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
""Cyber Anakin" wants MH17 revenge". Perth Now. March 5, 2016. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
Starks, Tim. "The RSA takeaway". POLITICO. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
"Security News This Week: WhatsApp Is Caught in Its Own Crypto War in Brazil". Wired. March 5, 2016. Archived from the original on August 4, 2020. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
"N Korea error promotes fake Twitter account". BBC News. April 12, 2018. Archived from the original on April 19, 2018. Retrieved May 26, 2018.
Whittaker, Zack. "A protester is spreading anti-Article 13 messages over exposed internet TVs". ZDNet. Archived from the original on June 15, 2018. Retrieved May 29, 2019.

Marginally reliable sources:

Everington, Keoni (12 April 2022). "Anonymous' Cyber Anakin hacks 5 Russian websites over Ukraine war | Taiwan News | 2022-04-12 18:33:00". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on April 12, 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
"A Teen Hacker Is Targeting Russian Sites as Revenge for the MH17 Crash". VICE Motherboard. March 5, 2016. Archived from the original on September 24, 2019. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
Everington, Keoni (6 May 2022). "Anonymous warns China not to 'try anything stupid against Taiwan' | Taiwan News | 2022-05-06 19:30:00". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on May 9, 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
* "Anonymous tells China not to do anything stupid against Taiwan". www.asianews.it. Retrieved 8 June 2022. Note per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_86#asianews.it/, source was considered for spam blocklist, and may be unreliable. Further analysis required.

Unreliable sources:

Williams, Martyn (April 6, 2018). "Mischief with Our Nation website". North Korea Tech - 노스코리아테크. Archived from the original on May 12, 2019. Retrieved August 15, 2019. - Note: North Korea Tech appears to be a self-published blog.
Williams, Martyn (April 6, 2018). "Mischief with Our Nation website". North Korea Tech - 노스코리아테크. Archived from the original on May 12, 2019. Retrieved August 15, 2019.
"Our Nation School (The North Korean Website List)". North Korea Tech. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
Lotto Persio, Sofia (April 12, 2018). "North Korea has yet to notice one of its propaganda websites links to an anti-Kim Jong Un Twitter account". Newsweek. Archived from the original on April 18, 2018. Retrieved May 29, 2019. - Note per WP:NEWSWEEK
* "North Korea Has yet to Notice It Got Cyber-Pranked on April Fools Day". Yahoo! News. Archived from the original on December 8, 2018. Retrieved May 29, 2019. - Note per the archived copy, this is a rehost of content published by Newsweek, so WP:NEWSWEEK applies

Primary sources:

"S/2015/562". undocs.org. Archived from the original on January 24, 2022. Retrieved April 23, 2022.
"S/PV.7498". undocs.org. Archived from the original on July 9, 2021. Retrieved April 23, 2022.

Books:

Iverson, Shepherd (April 16, 2019). Stop North Korea!: A Radical New Approach to the North Korea Standoff. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-0-80485-182-4. Archived from the original on June 6, 2022. Retrieved February 6, 2021 – via Googlebooks. Note Separated out due to it being harder to verify for related content.
McCoy, Erin L. (December 15, 2018). Cyberterrorism (First ed.). Cavendish Square. p. 7. ISBN 9781502640413. Note Separated out due to it being harder to verify for related content.

Non-English sources:

"Это похоже на крик души. Но я не знаю, о чем он кричит Больше десяти лет кто-то присылает российским шахматисткам письма с использованными презервативами и порно. Мы нашли этого человека". Meduza (in Russian). Archived from the original on April 16, 2022. Retrieved April 12, 2022.
""Медуза"*: российские шахматистки больше десяти лет получали письма с использованными презервативами". Главные новости мира — последние события в мире сегодня | RTVI (in Russian). February 7, 2022. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 12, 2022.

Additional reliable sources that mention Cyber Anakin, grouped by reliability

Reliable:

"Hacker group Anonymous warns China against invasion". Asian News International. 7 May 2022.

Marginally reliable:

vijay (5 March 2016). "Cyber Anakin targeting Russian website to avenge Air Malaysia MH-17 crash". Techworm. Note unclear reliability, has not been discussed at RSN, putting into marginally reliable for caution
"Anonymous Hacker Group Warns China against Invading Taiwan". CyberSecurity Connect. 9 May 2022. Note unclear reliability, has not been discussed at RSN, putting into marginally reliable for caution

Generally Unreliable:

Majumdar, Anwesha (7 May 2022). "Anonymous Hacks CCP-run Website; Warns China To Not Do 'anything Stupid Against Taiwan'". Republic World. Note generally unreliable per WP:REPUBLICTV

Non-English sources:

"Anonymous hackera il sito del Partito comunista a Taiwan, l'avvertimento a Pechino". Open (in Italian). 7 May 2022.
"Anonymous amenaza a Beijing: no hagan ninguna estupidez contra Taipéi". AsiaNews (in Italian). 7 May 2022.
匿名者告誡中國勿犯台小心中國航母遼寧號沉沒 [Anonymous warns China not to offend Taiwan, be careful of sinking of Chinese aircraft carrier Liaonig]. Newtalk (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 7 May 2022.
美國中情局局長：北京正仔細研究並汲取俄烏戰爭教訓以便應用在攻台戰計畫上 [CIA director: Beijing is carefully studying and drawing lessons from the Russian-Ukrainian war to apply to its plan to attack Taiwan]. CNMedia (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 9 May 2022.

Motherboard article

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking at the Motherboard article before and realized that theres a lot about Cyber Anakin from it that the Wikipedia article leaves out

He said he chooses targets randomly
He said he only cares about public shock
Motherboard used the phrase "delusions of grandeur"
He claimed to know someone who had a relative on the flight

The first two seem like ABOUTSELF, the third is probably a BLP issue, and the fourth seems like "my friends cousin" and not worth including.

Those are the only details about Cyber Anakin himself, instead of the event. WP:NOTWHOSWHO Softlemonades (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the random target choice was only for the 2016 hacks, or if that continued into his later ones. For example the choice of the North Korean school could be random, or it could have been opportunistic. We could fit it into the 2016 paragraph though, because we know for sure that it's at least a relevant ABOUTSELF statement for that.

Public shock, same concerns as above. I'd be hesitant to use "delusions of grandeur" even as an attributed statement to Motherboard it presents some BLP concerns. Agree that the claim does about the flight does seem as you say "my friend's cousin". Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can only apply them to the 2016 hacks. He said it before any of the other stuff happened, so he couldnt have meant it for that and we cant assume nothing would change. Softlemonades (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Defacements included in the article

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Subsequent activities only talks about a website defacement that Cyber Anakin did, and its mentioned in the IranWire interview but like your edit pointed out, they didnt even get the name right (reliability? but I think theres an archive of it somewhere). Im also not sure its significant enough to be included in Wikipedia.

I know notability guidelines dont generally apply within articles, but Wikipedia also isnt an indiscriminate collection of information. There are lots of articles that leave out lots of information and sources and citations on their subjects because its not essential, from celebrities to less problematic BLPs to general histories of sciences.

Comparing it to mentions of defacements in the LulzSec article, I see four doing a quick find. Theyre either general, go along with a specific leak and have more significance, or the News Corporation defacement that was a false report of Rupert Murdochs death. All of those are a lot more significant, and LulzSec did a lot of defacements.

I dunno Softlemonades (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think, as weak as it is, the IranWire source adds some content to the article. I don't think there's any harm in including it for now, though I would prefer if there were stronger sources available for it. If any of Anakin's more recent attacks get coverage, we could look at trimming it then, but even then it fills somewhat of a gap. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree about no real harm for now but I dont really see the point of it and think "he did a defacement" isnt super encyclopedic. I saw Hacktivism#DkD[|| today and that looks perfect for including defacements. He was known for defacements, but its "more than 2000 pages, many were governments and US military sites" and he was "the most wanted hacktivist in france". Softlemonades (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What is this?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Check this out. Maybe something that could be used in this article? Who knows. jp×g 01:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Article has some issues, like saying Im banned as a sockpuppet of someone, and the RfC on Taiwan News decided it was "marginally reliable". See also User_talk:Softlemonades#Did_you_see_we_made_Taiwan_News? Softlemonades (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: I already made this point on AN, and you should consider contacting Sideswipe9th (possibly privately) who I suspect has come to many of the same conclusions I have, and who likely knows a lot more about everything going on here than I do, but we probably shouldn't be using articles written by Keoni Everington in this topic area. The fact that he changes his stories without acknowledging having done so is probably reason enough to avoid him anywhere. In the article you just linked compare [5] with [6]. Perhaps it will change again, and in the future there will even be ghost versions that existed only between archive runs. That's not quality journalism and is quite undesirable from a WP:V perspective. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Not much to say on the source. Softlemonades has pointed out the most recent RfC on the site, which ended with a marginally reliable consensus. In light of the additional considerations at play here I think we're pretty safe to not rely on that source website (not just articles by Everington), or any others that primarily rebase their content on it unless they have a strong reputation for fact checking and verification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Like you predicted another change spotted Softlemonades (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

North Korea Twitter prank

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

So let's discuss this, User:Softlemonades. There are multiple sources for the North Korea prank that you keep deleting:

Just this passage in ZDNet alone is enough to justify inclusion: "He previously made a name for himself for opening another vacant account, linked to from a North Korea-run web page."

Per WP:RSP, ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles..

For reference, North Korea Tech's About page is here. Williams is a fellow of The Stimson Center where he works primarily on 38 North. His page on the Stimson website, specifically mentioning North Korea Tech, is here. Williams/North Korea Tech is widely quoted by reliable sources –

BBC (quote: Martyn Williams, who runs the respected North Korea Tech blog, told BBC Monitoring ...),
New York Times,
Telegraph, etc.

WP:USEBYOTHERS applies. I really don't see what your problem is here. Would you care to explain? Regards, Andreas JN 466 14:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

BBC is an anonymous newsblog post like i said

ZDnet is tertiary and cites the BBC blog post like i said

Newsweek is generally unreliable like RSP says

Williams didnt write it, Stimson Center didnt write it, 38 North didnt write it, your Williams quote is unrelated, none of those matter so I really dont see why you keep bringing that up

Use by others says If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken Softlemonades (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The BBC article is by BBC Monitoring (please have a look at that article) and includes the BBC's own reporting (they contacted Cyber Anakin). There is no requirement that every article cited in Wikipedia should have a byline identifying a named member of staff.

The phrase tertiary source doesn't mean what you think it means.

RSP does not say that "Newsweek is generally unreliable". It says that "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable ... consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". Newsweek is classed as a "yellow" source in the RSP colour scheme; if you look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend, that is actually the second most reliable class of sources out of a total of five such classes.

As for Williams, you queried the relationship between the North Korea Tech site, 38 North, and the Stimson Center here, so I am explaining. The North Korea Tech site is part of 38 North and the Stimson Center as explained on the Stimson website here: 38 North has become an authoritative source for information and analysis on North Korea ... In 2017, it added key affiliated blogs—North Korea Economy Watch, North Korea Leadership Watch, and North Korea Tech ... So to sum up, Martyn Williams is one of the West's most renowned North Korea experts, widely quoted by top sources such as the BBC, Reuters, and others. He wrote about Cyber Anakin's prank, and his report was picked up and quoted by the BBC and ZDNet, two top-tier sources. In addition, Newsweek independently picked the story up, and it was also reported in the book mentioned above. This is more than adequate sourcing. --Andreas JN 466 13:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

You can mention blogs and websites that arent involved all you want, it doesnt matter. 38 North isnt part of this. Stimson Center isnt part of this. North Korea Economy Watch isnt part of this. North Korea Leadership Watch isnt part of this. Saying a book mentions it doesnt matter without looking at who wrote it is meaningless. Shes a poet with no expertise https://erinlmccoy.com/. "generally unreliable" and "not generally reliable" mean the same thing. Its 100% not true that "his report was picked up and quoted by ZDNet", which just references the BBC report

BBC Monitoring is a translation service as a WP:NEWSBLOG which warns may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process and attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote …" Softlemonades (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

And Martyn Williams' expertise doesnt matter because its WP:ABOUTSELF. And it does involve claims about third parties and it does involve claims about events not directly related to the source which is not good since you argue hes affiliated to the victim and that could mean the source has a COI Softlemonades (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)