Terpene

thcscience_admin

Prior articles

See also:

— xaosflux Talk 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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 Talk 12:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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Sideswipe9th starting from a few days ago; see this, this and this, however his removals had caused the page to become out of date and made it less interesting to readers instead, so I had restored the contents again.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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We dont write articles or cite sources based on future possibilities Softlemonades (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyber_Anakin&oldid=1112956354

Leave a Reply