Talk:Cyber Anakin

RfC on North Korea prank

A prank by hacktivist Cyber Anakin ridiculing and denigrating Kim Jong-un, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, was reported on by North Korea Tech (a site affiliated with 38 North and the Stimson Center), BBC Monitoring, ZDNet, Newsweek, and a book on Cyberterrorism. Is this sourcing adequate to mention the matter in Cyber Anakin's biography? Andreas JN466 13:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the relevant source links are:

1. North Korea Tech
2. BBC
3. ZDNet
4. Newsweek
5. Cyberterrorism (book by Cavendish Square Publishing)

--Andreas JN466 14:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. For more detail on the sources involved please see preceding section. --Andreas JN466 13:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• No. ZDNet just mentioned the BBC blog post, the "book" is a 64 page thing for kids written by a poet that makes one sentence mention, Newsweek is not reliable at RSP, North Korea Tech breaks the second rule of WP:ABOUTSELF. Softlemonades (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Use e.g. the BBC as a source. Although it uses blog format it is professional journalism and not WP:SELFPUB and the fact that it has no author byline is inconsequential. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Use the BBC and academic journal sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that the prank is also mentioned in a recent paper published in the Journal of Peace and Unification, a Korean academic journal dedicated to North-South relations:

• Bernhard Seliger, Felix Glenk, Teresa Wellner: "North Korea’s New Social Media Policies: More Openness or just Better Propaganda?",
  ISSN: 2233-9671, published 2021 by Ewha Institute of Unification Studies, doi: https://doi.org/10.31780/jpu.2021.11.2.97.

(The journal is Open Access, and the pdf is available at the link given above. The text is also available here. Like BBC Monitoring, they cite Williams.) --Andreas JN466 23:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Cyber Anakin's involvement in identifying the man harassing female chess players

User:Softlemonades, you deleted the sentence about Cyber Anakin enabling Meduza journalists to identify the man who had been harassing female chess players by sending them used condoms and pages from pornographic magazines. In your edit summary, you said, Discussed before and removed check Talk archives. On checking the talk page archives, I found nothing except the following passage in a summary of available sources for this biography:

• 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.

I checked these sources, and as that editor said, both Meduza (a Latvian Russian-language site run by Russian exiles) and RTVI (a Russian TV channel mostly viewed by people outside Russia) credit Cyber Anakin with having provided the crucial bit of information that allowed the harasser to be identified. For your reference:

• Meduza says: [...] data on the owner of the email [email protected] has only been in the public domain once - as a result of a hacking attack by an activist under the nickname Cyber Anakin. The February 2016 hack compromised the data of almost 1.5 million km.ru users [...]
  Cyber Anakin announced the leak of user data as "Operation Anakin [Skywalker's] Wrath" [...]
  Cyber Anakin gave Meduza access to the technical data of the [email protected] mailbox [...]
  Cyber Anakin also looked at some of the letters from the box [email protected] [...]
  He gave Meduza the name of the person on whose behalf this correspondence took place: [...]
  "The guy has a profile on the FIDE website," the hacktivist added. [...]
  And the hacktivist Cyber Anakin, who examined the contents of Strebkov's mailbox, drew attention to the correspondence of the chess player "with literary agents".
• RTVI says: According to data provided to journalists by the hacker nicknamed Cyber Anakin, the owner of the e-mail went online from Latvia, and more precisely - from Riga, somewhere around the postal code LV-1021, which combines addresses in the south-east of the Latvian capital, including Akademika Keldysha Street or Salnas Street. This index is indicated on one of the letters sent to the chess players. Cyber Anakin also gave Meduza the name of the person on whose behalf the correspondence in the post office box was written.

This is pivotal involvment in a very substantial piece of investigative journalism (the original Meduza article runs to over 10,000 words ... it's New Yorker-style, long-form journalism). Looking at it now, don't you agree it's fair enough to mention this in Cyber Anakin's biography? (Thanks for restoring the North Korea paragraph discussed in the RfC above.) Regards, Andreas JN466 13:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It mightve been removed by the troll whos always trying to expand this article, they tried to disable and mess up archiving several times, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Bugmenot123123123 which says consensus has uniformly been against these additions and then gives examples and Once discussions conclude BMN123 archives them and attempts to conceal them by noindexing the archive pages; Sometimes discussions are just blanked instead (I created the stub page but it was completely rewritten and expanded) or part of ANI where admins agreed it needed to be trimmed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Cyber_Anakin_and_IP_editor_conduct or one of the many other pages it spun out to Softlemonades (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It was actually removed by Drmies in this edit. I suspect it may have been because Drmies' many talents don't include a working knowledge of Russian; moreover, the wording that was in the article at the time didn't make clear that Cyber Anakin actually played an active part in Meduza's investigation (and indeed solved the question of the man's identity for them; his interactions with the Meduza team are described in chapters 7 and 8 of the Meduza piece).

Be that as it may, may I assume that neither you nor Drmies have any objection to my reinserting the sentence now? I would cite both Meduza and RTVI. Regards, Andreas JN466 17:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No I still dont think it belongs Softlemonades (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, have a look – his involvement was more widely reported as well. For example:

• The Insider e.g. said (in translation): Meduza discovered that the email owner's details [email protected] had once been in the public domain as a result of a hack by an activist nicknamed CyberAnakin on the website km.ru. CyberAnakin gave Meduza access to the [email protected] data. The "leaked" data included the IP address from which this email was accessed. It turned out that the owner of the e-mail was accessing the Internet from Riga, somewhere around the LV-1021 postal code. This index was indicated on an envelope received by one of the chess players. CyberAnakin reviewed some of the emails from the box [email protected] and gave Meduza the name of the person on whose behalf this correspondence was carried out ...
• Sobesednik.ru (an outlet significant enough to have been quoted by the New York Times, the BBC, Reuters etc.) has a piece here saying The person hiding behind Kota Afromeev's nickname was identified thanks to a leak by hacktivist CyberAnakin.
• Kazakh news site Ulysmedia.kz has a paragraph pretty identical to the one in the Insider in their (otherwise different) write-up: [1], and the story was also on Rambler (portal) and Belarussian sports news site athletes.by, describing Cyber Anakin's involvement in much the same terms: [2], [3].

In Wikipedia we go by coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources to decide whether including something is WP:DUE. In my view, there is more than enough coverage to make inclusion due. Regards, --Andreas JN466 13:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"No I still dont think it belongs" is never a good reason to oppose inclusion of well-sourced content. I have a decent knowledge of Russian (but not familiarity with post-Soviet Russia) and do not see anything terribly amiss. Supporting Andreas' proposal. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I was asked I answered. Im tired of the 100000 word arguments for this page, the constant rush to restore stuff, the canvassing and people mysteriously showing up and Im waiting for the other editor to answer Softlemonades (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Andreas, you assessed my linguistic skills correctly. I must have removed it because of what you suggested, that there was no clear ascription and thus the importance was remote, to my eyes; your summary/account above cleared that up, and I thank you for it. By all means restore as you see fit--without the overlinking, of course! Drmies (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks for coming back over, restored it Softlemonades (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)