Revision as of 19:49, 24 September 2022 editI dream of horses (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers572,256 edits →A mountain out of molehill?: reply (CD)← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:02, 24 September 2022 edit undoSideswipe9th (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,284 edits →A mountain out of molehill?: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:::Please stop casting this as {{tq|a mountain out of a molehill}}, or implying that content was removed by {{re|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 ] in edits by other editors is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | :::Please stop casting this as {{tq|a mountain out of a molehill}}, or implying that content was removed by {{re|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 ] in edits by other editors is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
::::Yes, a spade is a spade. Furthermore, the "preprint" has became 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 . On {{tq|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 ]. It's always okay for you to ] if any or all of the removals prove overzealous.] (]) 18:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | ::::Yes, a spade is a spade. Furthermore, the "preprint" has became 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 . On {{tq|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 ]. It's always okay for you to ] if any or all of the removals prove overzealous.] (]) 18:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::::That one of the two preprints has now been published would somewhat address the ] issue, however the fact that Cyber Anakin's name only appears in the supplementary data does not address the ] 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 ] and ] issues. The claim that {{tq|Shortly after that it was further disseminated by the ] during their ]}} 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 ] and ] issue, that results in inherently ] text. ] (]) 20:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:FYI, {{Useranon|45.136.197.235}} invited me and four other people to this discussion; how we were chosen to be invited isn't immediately obvious to me. ] ] ] 19:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC) | :FYI, {{Useranon|45.136.197.235}} invited me and four other people to this discussion; how we were chosen to be invited isn't immediately obvious to me. ] ] ] 19:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:02, 24 September 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyber Anakin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy delete. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2018 and 2 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Treasure lynn98. |
[REDACTED] | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2022050810003262. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
Prior articles
See also:
- — xaosflux 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I can't follow how this draft was created. Can you explain it to me? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: it was created about a year ago on test2wiki by what looks like a throwaway account, then edited by IP's over there. Our IP user 137.74.150.79 asked for a history transwiki at WP:RFPI which I completed for them (Special:Diff/899350133). They originally wanted it created as an article, but I declined, opting for Draft so it would have to go through new pages patrol. There looks to be a mess in the old moves/sandboxes/possible socking/etc - but if this really is someone elses work I'd rather have the history present then a new fork. No opinion if this meets inclusion standards or if there is more socking going on. Hope that helps? — xaosflux 12:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I've never even heard of WP:RFPI, so this is obviously educational for me. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Accepted on the basis that it was previously deleted in 2017 as a case of WP:BLP1E. There are newer sources suggesting that BLP1E might no longer apply. Not sure if the subject is notable, but there are enough sources that it at least merits another AFD. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I've never even heard of WP:RFPI, so this is obviously educational for me. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: it was created about a year ago on test2wiki by what looks like a throwaway account, then edited by IP's over there. Our IP user 137.74.150.79 asked for a history transwiki at WP:RFPI which I completed for them (Special:Diff/899350133). They originally wanted it created as an article, but I declined, opting for Draft so it would have to go through new pages patrol. There looks to be a mess in the old moves/sandboxes/possible socking/etc - but if this really is someone elses work I'd rather have the history present then a new fork. No opinion if this meets inclusion standards or if there is more socking going on. Hope that helps? — xaosflux 12:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A mountain out of molehill?
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 Misplaced Pages. 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 toAmong 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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
- I was aware of what the Heise article said, which is why I said that
- On the topic "Failed Verification", this Heinz Heise article provided that
- 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)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/30 May 2019
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Start-Class biography articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Computer Security articles
- Low-importance Computer Security articles
- Start-Class Computer Security articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Computer Security articles
- Start-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Items with VRTS permission confirmed