HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

mostcallmeyt

271 karma · joined March 16, 2023

submissionscomments
mostcallmeyt··on Wikipedia's Oberranks Incident
> "After being blacklisted, XXXXX came to believe that a historian named XXXXXX, who had been heavily involved with the NARA-Wikipedia Military Database Project, was personally responsible. Between 2012 and 2019, the story becomes somewhat confusing. By that point, the account believed to be "OberRanks" was no longer being operated by a single individual. Instead, it had become a shared National Archives account used by at least three different staff members over a period of years: the original XXXXXX, research room chief XXXXXX, and military records specialist XXXXXX. The account's primary purpose was to support the NARA-Wikipedia Military Database Project, which was responsible for creating and expanding much of Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. military awards, decorations, badges, and i nsignia. In 2018, however, XXXXXX was promoted to another federal agency and left the National Archives and the project was discontinued shortly afterwards."

> "The year 2019 is when most of the things you asked about happened. By that point, the German editor XXXXX had created several Wikipedia posts and pages intended to discredit XXXXXX, alleging plagiarism, falsified research, and copyright violations. I did not independently investigate every allegation, but some of it, particularly those involving copyright compliance and shoddy or loose reference sourcing, absolutely had merit. However, the overall effort appeared to become increasingly exaggerated and personal, extending well beyond ordinary editorial disputes on Wikipedia. Ultimately, this campaign contributed to XXXXXX being banned from Wikipedia. By that time, however, the OberRanks account was no longer active, as most of the National Archives staff who had operated it had either been promoted or left the agency. Besides his work on military awards and insignia, XXXXXX was also a well-respected Holocaust historian and had written dozens of Wikipedia articles covering Nazi Germany, the SS, and related subjects. The initial effort by XXXXX to discredit XXXXXX appears to have focused primarily on his World War II and Holocaust-related Wikipedia articles. There was also a brief effort outside Wikipedia to discredit books and papers written by XXXXXX, apparently assisted by a librarian from Canada named XXXXX, who was well known on Wikipedia for challenging articles about Nazi Germany. Around this same time, several of XXXXXX's published books had begun appearing as references on Wikipedia, but XXXXX immediately challenged them, claiming they were self-published and therefore unreliable."

> "Some of this dispute appears to have stemmed from disagreements over Holocaust history, while some of it may simply have reflected professional jealousy after XXXXXX's own books began appearing as cited sources on Wikipedia. In any event, the effort to discredit XXXXXX's publications backfired when the Canadian librarian XXXXX contacted several libraries, all of which rejected her cl aims. Later, the German editor XXXXX shifted his attention to the military awards and insignia articles but was quickly challenged by other Wikipedia editors, who recognized that those articles were part of a legitimate National Archives project. During the COVID-19 pandemic, around 2021-2022, the largest incident occurred when the German editor XXXXXX range-blocked every National Archives IP address on the east coast. This apparently was after a military history group asked questions regarding several articles and images that XXXXX had worked on years earlier as part of a project to upload captured German U-boat records to Wikipedia. XXXXX then accused the "OberRanks" account of being part of this history group and proceeded with the range block. By this point, XXXXXX was also being assisted by a man from the United Kingdom named XXXXXXX, who had joined Wikipedia after the OberRanks ban but had developed a strong animosity toward the National Archives staff whom he believed had operated that account. "

> "He was also one of the individuals XXXXX would later investigate on the Wikipedia Sucks website. Meanwhile, the National Archives IP range block attracted considerable attention, and both National Archives staff and government IT contractors contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about what had happened. The German editor XXXXX, assisted by XXXXX, responded with several lengthy posts on Wikipedia's noticeboards arguing that XXXXXXX, whom they believed was still operating the OberRanks account, was behind everything. Ironically, as I mentioned earlier, XXXXX had not been employed by the National Archives for several years by then. The range block was eventually lifted, but not before XXXXXX and XXXXXX had posted personal doxing information about XXXXXX on Wikipedia, which was later removed by the Wikipedia "Arbitration Committee", a volunteer group on Wikipedia (separate from the Wikipedia Foundation) in charge of serious issues on the various articles and forums."

> "During this same period, the British editor, XXXXXX, made statements about contacting National Archives leadership and suggested that he intended to travel to the United States to confront the person he believed to be OberRanks. These statements were immediately condemned by many Wikipedia editors, and XXXXXX was warned that he himself could face a site ban if he followed through with these plans. By the time I was contacted about all of this, there had been one further attempt on the Wikipedia Sucks website to revive the OberRanks dispute, primarily by posting the names and addresses of XXXXXX and his family. Since XXXXX had by then become a senior federal employee, the matter drew the attention of law enforcement on both sides of the Atlantic. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division examined the Wikipedia Sucks website, while XXXXXX, a British citizen, was investigated by the United Kingdom's National Crime Agency under the Protection from Harassment Act. I believe this effectively brought the dispute to an end, since ever since then, there has been little further activity concerning the matter, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the Internet. "

> "Also, XXXXXX is now reportedly a senior case officer at the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, making any further harassment of him a far more serious matter than it might once have been. There is also an entirely separate aspect to this story involving an account named "Husnock," which appears to have existed for nearly twenty years before any of the OberRanks business took place. That account first appeared sometime between 2004 and 2006 and primarily edited Star Trek articles. I am fairly certain this original account was operated by an entirely different individual because the writing style, interests, editing patterns, and interactions were markedly different from those of the later OberRanks account. The Husnock account was later used as a template to start up the OberRanks account sometime in 2007. There was also a fifth individ ual, a private Navy history researcher named XXXXXX, who obtained the password to the OberRanks account when he was performing studies at the National Archives. This happened shortly before the account was banned around 2018. I was never able to learn much more about this last person because he passed away soon afterward. However, his family appears to have contacted Wikipedia with a ceaseand-desist letter around 2021, after several abusive messages were left on the OberRanks account's talk page. "

> "The Wikimedia Foundation later removed all of those messages through their redaction feature. To sum it all up, what began as an ordinary disagreement over Wikipedia content evolved into years of personal accusations, off-site harassment, doxing, law enforcement inquiries, and institutional involvement on both sides of the Atlantic. It remains one of the more unusual Internet disputes I have encountered in my work as a private investigator. A full case report is available through the normal channels, although no one has yet contacted me with a serious offer to purchase it.

> Keep up the good fight. -XXXX"

mostcallmeyt··on Wikipedia's Oberranks Incident
Direct quote:

> Hello! First time posting here. The other day there was this email, forwarded from a moot of mine which in turn came from a private investigator that did a deep dive on the Oberranks incident at Wikipedia, and made a private investigator report of it which is available for $2,800 from Aragon Investigations LLC in Arizona; you can phone call them and ask about that if you don't believe me. If the full story gets put in the press, expect it to become one of the "greatest news of the decade" like Jacob Coxon.

> TLDR: Wikipedia scandal where multiple powertripping admins gangstalked fed employees for more than a decade, which will trigger media storms and even congressional investigations if the full details get put on the news.

> Except here, quotes mine:

> "XXXX, Mother of God, what an absolute trainwreck. The amount of time and taxpayer money wasted on this internet turf war makes my head spin. And there's enough stupidity here to go around for everyone involved. First off, let's talk about the original beef and these Wikipedia guys. If XXXXXX was cutting corners on his citations, that's sloppy work. You slap the guy's wrist, tell him to fix it, and move on. You don't start a decade-long crusade over missing references about military badges. And then there's this whole angle with the Holocaust history, which is where this goes from petty to downright screwy. You've got this German guy going out of his way to attack a respected historian, trying to discredit his articles and claiming his published books are unreliable junk. It leaves a real bad taste in my mouth and smells like Holocaust denial. And throw that Canadian librarian in the mix - who has the time to call up libraries to try and tank a guy's career over Wikipedia references?"

> "But don't think for a second I'm letting the National Archives off the hook. This "OberRanks" circus? What kind of amateur hour were they running over there? You've got federal employees all sharing a single login to do "official" government work on a public site run by anonymous users. That is garbage operational security. And then they just hand the password over to some private Navy researcher who happens to be passing through. It's a miracle they didn't leak something classified. And let's not forget the Wikimedia Foundation and their so-called "Arbitration Committee." A bunch of volunteer hall monitors who let a dispute fester for a decade until women are getting stalked, federal employees are getting doxed, and the Army CID and the NSA have to get involved. If they had just booted the lot of them back in 2012 when the threats started, none of this would have happened. When you step back and look at it, you've got a tragic death, international police investigations, and ten years of harassment all because a bunch of grown men couldn't walk away from an internet dispute. There aren't any good guys in this mess, just ruined reputations and a whole lot of wasted time. Anyway, shoot me the invoice. I want to read the rest of the report. Stay safe out there. — Kevin"

> "From: Zeke Igtos Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2026 09:39 AM To: XXXXXX@pd.boston.gov>

Subject: Wikipedia Case Summary

Kevin, thanks for reaching out about the Wikipedia case. Here is the report summary of the case file I drew up. I was contacted around four years ago after a friend of my ex-wife (XXXXXXX) began writing a story about the stalking of women on Wikipedia by a handful of prolific male editors. From what I was able to gather, XXXXXXX had briefly created an account on a website called Wikipedia Sucks to identify some of the men involved. One of them then attempted to have her removed from the site, claiming she was actually a banned Wikipedia account called "OberRanks". They ultimately succeeded in having her removed. By that point, she was preparing to move to Israel anyway and, sadly, lost her life in a terrorist attack shortly thereafter. As for the Wikipedia case I investigated, it primarily revolved around a long-running dispute between a prolific German editor named XXXXX and the United States National Archives. Around 2011, XXXXX was blacklisted from the National Archives after sending threatening messages to several members of its staff. The dispute centered largely on photographs of U.S. military awards, badges, and insignia that XXXXX believed violated Wikipedia's copyright policies."

mostcallmeyt··on Bellingcat: The Osint Gatekeepers Who Can't Secure Their Own Site
Generally, "heavy handed moderation" in social media platforms isn't really sustainable either as some pushbacks had lead to the EU passing a law requiring them those platforms have adequate redress mechanisms.

Wikipedia is a paragon of virtue for that but from personal observations, they will become a fine case against "heavy handed moderation" one day if the Jennsaurus Files ends up in the media.

What we need is "due diligent moderation" instead of going into either extremes.

There could be a system which can address dead internet theory while avoiding "heavy handed moderation", by letting some users to verify themselves as humans by using Needemand's hand gesture verification solution. Presumably as others had put it, all accounts on any given platforms will then be divided into the categories of human-verified, unverified/ambiguous and bots.

mostcallmeyt··on Big YouTube channels are being banned. YouTubers are blaming AI
Google needs to be treated like public utilities or so once the Dems come back to power in 2026 and 2028.
mostcallmeyt··on Elon Musk Takes Aim at Wikipedia
The facts that Wikipedia has content and community problems (such as biases in Israel-Palestine topic area and systemic powertripping by admins) and that Elon Musk is a far-right kook are not mutually exclusive, just in case everyone here is confused.
mostcallmeyt··on How Do We Stop Deepfakes from Tricking Juries?
Comparing the utter scale of the problem this time around to things such as photoshop shows just how little you understand the sheer magnitude of this problem. That's even worse than simply comparing apples to oranges.

Photoshop and similar applications did allow misinformation to be made. But not even 0.01% as much as AI-powered deepfakes as we see today. Photoshop took time, skill and had limitations. The worst someone could really do before was photoshop your head onto the body of someone else.

Now videos that look 100% real can be generated at lightning speed with no effort. Think of a celebrity, or a politician. Half a decade ago if you saw a photo of them you could be pretty certain it actually was them. Now you can’t. Half a decade if you heard an audio clip of a particular person confessing to something you could be almost certain it was them. Now you can’t. Videos and audio used to be pretty reliable before. Now they’re useless. AI deepfakes makes misinformation 1000X worse then Photoshop ever did.

It's sensible to think that it is possibly one of the reasons of the Great Filter.

mostcallmeyt··on How Do We Stop Deepfakes from Tricking Juries?
The p(doom) by deepfakes against epistemic reality is a nightmare fuel. This is one of the very few things that should be uninvented and chucked into either the abyss of an ocean or into a volcano.
mostcallmeyt··on Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"
Completely agree. In the long term though it's not surprising if the US Congress eventually set up a special committee to open investigations against Wikipedia and possibly other websites, because as can be seen below, some Wikipedia admins have been implicated in serial harassments against women and even actual employees of the USG.

https://www.reddit.com/r/justwikipediathings/wiki/index

mostcallmeyt··on Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"
A lot of critical coverages against Wikipedia have indeed appeared lately.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114599942/wikipedia-recessio...

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4703442

https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltra...

https://forward.com/opinion/550600/wikipedia-holocaust-disin...

https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wikipedia-road-highway-...

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202401124365

https://theconversation.com/wikipedias-volunteer-editors-are...

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/12/the-hofmann-wobble-wikip...

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...

Aaron Bandler of Jewish Journal also wrote many articles criticizing Wikipedia's antisemitic problems in the wake of October 7 attacks too. Not to mention "The Wikipedia Flood" blog which is posting more reports on Wikipedia.

mostcallmeyt··on Wikipedia Was Never Better Than This
It's up for debate regarding the author's focus, but one thing remain clear is that Wikipedia is overrated for some time and many choose not to see the nuances or issues that come with it. Just look at this one where one even accused me of "unhealthy obsession" against Wikipedia.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41691168

I suspect that those crazy fans of Elizabeth Holmes may have used the same aspersions against critics when John Carreyou published the article back then.

mostcallmeyt··on Wikipedia Was Never Better Than This
Israel Palestine war aside, there's been a lot of controversies about Wikipedia lately. Two of them were the presumably still unfixed content distortion and bias incidents on Native American topics and the Holocaust in Poland.

https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-americ...

https://forward.com/opinion/550600/wikipedia-holocaust-disin...

Not to mention that there are alleged systemic biases against non-European narratives.

https://www.worldreligionnews.com/wikipedia/wikipedia-and-bu...

A research paper essentially confirmed what many Wikipedia insiders, ex-editors and critics are trying to say - Wikipedia has a toxicity problem.

https://theconversation.com/wikipedias-volunteer-editors-are...

mostcallmeyt··on How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges into the Public Record
Tip of the iceberg:

https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-ha...

mostcallmeyt··on Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline
Totally! Same problem existed on Google as well whose systems have penchants to arbitarily lock users out of their accounts if they ever detected flimsy "suspicious activity" in these.
mostcallmeyt··on The Internet Is About to Get Weird Again
A lot of major platforms are declining or otherwise having problems now and which could lead to the reshaping of the Internet.

Google is cutting its operating costs and having an inactive account policy which some described as "harsh" because it entails the summary deletion of those accounts, while having some scandals with antitrust and incognito browser which saw them sued. Twitter is in steady decline due to the antics of Elon Musk which scared away a lot of financial backers. Reddit's API pricing are described as "expensive" and "harsh" as well which made a lot of users to jump ship to Lemmy et al.

But they are all far from being climaxes because Wikipedia, once the "purest" place of the Internet, had been getting increasingly negative coverage where the distortions in topic areas related to the Holocaust and Israel were reported, and according to credible rumors on an online forum populated with former Wikipedia editors, there are 20+ sexual harassment scandals against females committed by sysops and users which could be published on mainstream publications as a long form feature story next year.

mostcallmeyt··on Changes to Tailscale Pricing and Plans
Yeah, I thought the webpage was broken when I saw it! :D

I can understand that things like SSH and Funnel cost more, since they actually interact with their server infrastructure… but the removal of features and ACLs from Starter wasn't well communicated.

mostcallmeyt··on Changes to Tailscale Pricing and Plans
Yeah. I had a feeling of dread when I saw the "Changes to your Tailscale plan" email subject, but then was positively surprised by many of the changes. For smaller companies, getting the first three users for free will also be nice.

Previously almost all features were available [0] on all plans, though with certain restrictions that made sense (and some that didn't). I was hitting those limits and wanted to get approval for us to purchase the Team plan.

But now I see that features have been stripped out of the "new" Team plan — and was also frustrated that I couldn't find any information on this. I guess overall the pricing structure makes sense for them, but it's frustrating to not have this clearer in their article.

I suppose I can live without things like Funnel and SSH, and don't need Okta etc., but paying the new ACL tax for Starter to Premium (a $12 jump per user) is more painful.

Overall a positive, but with rough edges which unfortunately hurt me. But perhaps there'll be some tweaks in future, and perhaps again the opportunity to pay for individual feature upgrades.

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230417141600/https://tailscale...

mostcallmeyt··on Show HN: Quality News – Towards a fairer ranking algorithm for Hacker News
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286140