Hello Mamasanju. Thank you for your ping at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. I just wanted to raise a concern that, in your comments in the discussion, specifically this comment, there still seems to be a confusion between the notability of an event [what would be required for a separate article to persist and survive] and the criteria for its inclusion in another article [perhaps in a single sentence or a footnote]. The comment "The event itself is notable" is contradicted by the comment (in the same edit) that a separate article about the event would be deleted due to lack of notability. MPS1992 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme get it straight. The event itself is notable because it went into news, but the notability level could only get it a footnote mention. For the article about it to be created, the event has to fit into all five criterias of WP:EVENTCRIT. But so far the event appeared to fit only 2 criterias: WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE, so this is quite borderline as the level of notability makes the event not enough for a standslone entry, but certainly enough for a one sentence footnote mention with skeptical tones.
To address your confusion and put it simply, the event itself is notable because it's on news, but for me notability level required for a single sentence mention <= notability level of the hacking event < notability level required for a standalone entry to be createdMamasanju (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that with the newfound consensus on that conversation we can safely assume that the distinction between the notability of an event [what would be required for a separate article to persist and survive] and the criteria for its inclusion in another article [perhaps in a single sentence or a footnote] has finally entered into their awareness. I think it's time to sit back and relax or do anything else we want :) Mamasanju (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you keep using "notable" to mean "mentioned [even once] in the news" then you are going to keep running into problems of not being understood. Rightly or wrongly, that is not how the term is generally used here on Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I take a neutral perspective into the equation I believe that the word "notable" is more vulnerable to a varied interpretation since no two humans are totally same in mind and body. Whatever my interpretation is, I don't think that the misunderstandings that arose from the "no two humans are totally same" nature will simply go away. Have a great weekend. :) Mamasanju (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Calton I'm not him but should I put an excerpt here to prove that a CONSENSUS has been made? Mamasanju (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Calton Originally I put that mention on main MH17 but Ahunt removed it so I started a discussion on that article's talk page to discuss the suitability of its inclusion with Ahunt and several other editors until we reached a consensus to put it on "International reactions". Don't you think it's archaic that a consensus which was about both article A and B on talk page of article A doesn't apply on article B? Mamasanju (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Calton MH17 pages are subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR if you have any comments or if an agreement is reached between us please reply here NOW. Mamasanju (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear only crickets from your part so I raised the question to "Tea House" accordingly. Mamasanju (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took the teahouse post down because I am quite repetitive but I put the concerning mention into draft mode once again pending discussion outcome there. I hope you'll respect the results even if you don't like it. Mamasanju (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stickee: "If there was a possible consensus over there, then it would likely apply here to" Mamasanju (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a chill pill; there's no need to make 54 edits over a single revert. Users aren't required to reply within minutes, so just give it a day or two for people to come online to reply. Stickee(talk) 01:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but I'm furious at the fact that Calton is still insisting on archaic rules and conveniently ignoring that Wikipedia is a consensus based community, not a rule based one. Mamasanju (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stickee: Meantime, I put the disputed content into draft mode again pending discussion outcome. Mamasanju (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly discussed with User:Martinevans123 and reached a basic consensus to add some skeptical tones into the edit since there's few sources. However, after both edit and my chat with Martinevans was removed altogether by User:Ahunt, a new question popped up. Is it relevant to include this edit as a footnote and put some skeptical tones into it per my consensus with Martinevans?
The only problem here is we found the event way too late.
This is a borderline case since the notability and even relevancy of this cybersecurity event is up for debate. IMO adding skeptical tone into the edit is more better than removing it altogether, at least we can avoid WP:UNDUE or WP:BIAS accusations.
60.54.37.77 (talk)User:Mamasanju 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea to add the skeptical tones into the edit per my consensus with Martin to maintain both WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT: On early 2016 both news outlets VICE Motherboard and news.com.au reported that a teenage hacker calling himself "Cyber Anakin" has hacked into several Russian websites in attempt to "avenge" the airliner shootdown.
This is 60.54.37.77 using a different IP since I'm using school PC right now. On an unrelated note, just now I remembered my WP account.
113.210.177.40 (talk)User:Mamasanju 02:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On User:Martinevans123concerns that no mainstream/conventional media has covered the hacking, I googled and found that news.com.au has diffused the news report into some of the newspapers they own:
Keep in mind that news.com.au is actually owned by Australian media giant News Corp Australia, so in this way the news just went into mainstream/conventional media, albeit on a smaller scale and is more like "mirroring". Mamasanju (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese security company Qihoo 360 has picked up the news, an indication that the story has received a widespread attention in 2016:
News (Chinese Language)
With such a widespread attention I don't see why we should neglect or refuse to mention this fact even as a footnote. Mamasanju (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. At some point in the past, the incident had an entire separate section in the article. That is clearly excessive. But a one-sentence mention or a footnote seems appropriate to me.
Incidentally, I think one or two people may be confusing the requirements for notability, which on Wikipedia means being sufficiently well covered by reliable sources to merit an entire separate article, and the much lesser requirements for merely being mentioned in another article. This incident does not need to be independently notable in order to be mentioned in this article. MPS1992 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is really a consequential story in the scheme of things. Google News Search shows the only sources are a handful of publications (around 5 when you count News Corp as a single source under WP:NEWSORG rules). Most events relating to MH17 generate hundreds of articles per event, but this event only generated 5. It just shows that it's trivial in the long run. Stickee(talk) 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I'll compare it to a MH17 story that was actually non-trivial. When a story is worthy of inclusion, news agencies report on it. So I'll compare which of the major news agencies reported on the two stories:
Evidently not worthy of inclusion. (News Corp could be counted as half an agency, but even with that it's hardly anything in comparison). Stickee(talk) 10:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5? Sounds appropriate for a footnote mention for me, though a separate section is not needed and the tone of the wording has to be adjusted. Per MPS1992, please do note that the criteria to include it as a footnote mention and the criteria to make an standalone article about the hack are two different things, with the former more lenient than the latter, so it'll be unwise to conflate the two together as it'll be like comparing apples to oranges. Mamasanju (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the edit is about how MH17 was shot down, whether the oxygen masks are on or who fired the missile, then I'll accept Stickee's criteria. But the edit is trying to present the aftereffects from this incident. Mamasanju (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In essential in here we're dealing with the reaction to the tragedy, not how the tragedy happened. If the Cyber Anakin hackings do fit Stickee's criteria, I would not ask for the tone to be adjusted to a more ambigious one (e.g. the addition of the word "reportedly") at the first place. Mamasanju (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered one thing. Data breaches in the magnitude of millions or higher in terms of affected users are considered quite consequential and remarkable in terms of impact in the cyber-security sector. If the breach only affect hundreds, I could accept Stickee's explanation and withdraw my edit proposal. But this hacking incident affected millions. Mamasanju (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some case studies that mentioned the hacking event, an indication that the said cybersecurity breach could have lasting significance per WP:PERSISTENCE12 (Chinese)3 (Czech)4. Mamasanju (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know "this hacking incident affected millions"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that according to the said coverages, computer security researcher Troy Hunt has verified that the breach is legit. He even gave out exact numbers of affected users in his Have I Been Pwned? website. Mamasanju (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1000000 = 1 million Mamasanju (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing it all I removed it because I didn't think it was very relevant to this article. Sure some guy attempted a hack and claimed it was in retribution for the shoot down, but the hack was ineffective and he could have claimed it was for Russian support of Assad in Syria, the Russian invasion of Crimea or any other so-called "cause". It didn't further this story at all. The fact that no real mainstream media ran the story shows it just isn't all that notable. In comparison, if one person mounts a protest outside a Russian embassy, in say Lima, Peru, about MH17, are we going to add it to the article, because this was pretty much the same level of incident. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed the issues of mainstream/conventional media on here so I'm not going to repeat it again since this issue is more like an opinion issue. There's a major difference between unauthorized intrusion of databases and simply protesting outside Russian embassy presumably with peaceful means. The former is very illegal in most countries and can get him charged with cybercrime law. This kind of distinction do matter. Wikipedia is not a Super Mario Bros, it is a never ending project. Who knows if KM.RU or Nival made some statements about this in the near future? Who knows if that "Lord Vader" get arrested or even assasinated because of the hack that affected millions? For now I stick through my proposal that a skeptical tone is to be added into the edit before making it live. Mamasanju (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have come out with a much better analogy based on Ahunt's. The Cyber Anakin incident is more similar to a scenario where the person use violent means to protest against a Russian embassy (e.g. window smashing, paint-throwing). On the latter case it might be enough to get included into List of attacks on diplomatic missions. They both are illegal. Mamasanju (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a useful analogy. I also think that if someone threw paint or broke a window at a Russian embassy we wouldn't put it in here, just too minor and not relevant to the actual shoot-down. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Cyber Anakin threw paints and broke windows of a Russian embassy instead of leaking out private login informations of millions of internet users and tied his motive to this tragedy I might write this in that parallel universe:
Media outlets (media outlet 1) and (media outlet 2) reported that the Russian embassy was vandalized by a protestor calling himself "Cyber Anakin", allegedly in response to this tragedy.
Have to agree with User:Ahunt it is not relevant to the incident and should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why it is "irrelevant" considering that Cyber Anakin's stated motive is centered around this tragedy. I think I have mentioned how the event fits WP:PERSISTENCE here before. Mamasanju (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about everybody who uses the accident as an excuse to do some sort of action or protest, he was not the only one to blame the accident for his actions they were many more all of which has no relevance to the accident. Did his activities cause or influence the incident, the answer appears to be no. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme get it straight. The MH17 tragedy influenced the hacker to commit the hacking incident, not the other way around. In this sense, the Cyber Anakin early 2016 hackings could be seen as an extension or aftereffects of MH17. I could be inclined to buy your explanation that he was not the only one to blame the tragedy for his hacktivist acts if the numbers of affected users were just hundreds instead of millions. I could have simply said that Some news outlets have reported numerous computer hacking incidents allegedly to "avenge" this tragedy if there are two or more hacktivist incidents that tied their motives to the "avenging" of this plane crash instead of one. Mamasanju (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This hacking incident is between the circle "MH17" and the circle "computer security" in a Venn diagram so I've asked for a comment from a user who is in cybersecurity Wikiproject. Mamasanju (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is notable as a hacking incident then you are welcome to create a new article but it has no place here unless they hacked the aircraft systems, Air Traffic Control or the Missile Control stuff which doesnt appear to be likely. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article? I think the entry would be nominated for removal as soon as it was created since it hadn't fulfill all of the five WP:EVENTCRITERIA yet, in fact it had only met one to two. However, I begin pondering to put the edit into the international reactions page after I considered the embassy analogy. The event itself is notable imo, but it's notability can only get it a footnote mention at the very mininum. Mamasanju (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:MilborneOne, it is at best an "after the event" attempt to tie into this shoot-down. It has very little to do with this story to the point where I just don't think it is worth including here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered the embassy analogy and I'm pondering to put it into International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown. Since as you said, it is at best an "after the event" attempt to tie into this shootdown, I remain adamant that a skeptical and ambigious tone should be added into the edit. At least we don't have to throw the water along with the baby. Mamasanju (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have put up a draft edit on the international reactions page, imo the hacking incident, especially its motives, is connected to the tragedy whether the link is factual or alleged. This is what makes it relevant to include it in either this page or in the international reactions page, albeit as a footnote. Mamasanju (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, at least we got a common ground :) Hope that the rest of the participants of this talk are informed of our newfound consensus. Mamasanju (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those who say that the incident is too insignificant (both the act and coverage) to be included here. I would have no strong feelings about inclusion in 'reactions', even there I believe our coverage should be very brief. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:MPS1992 the mention should consist in one sentence, although the ambigious and skeptical tone has to be retained in the edit on the reactions page. Mamasanju (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calton | Talk 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIPEDIA is a consensus based community and your insistence to follow some archaic rule suggested that you treated this as a prison or an army base. Accordingly I had raise a question on Tea House to see who's right. Mamasanju (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, I don't work for you and am not at your beck and call.
I'm not him but let's take a minute to analyze the BANREVERT "rule".
"This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), "
See that?
Next, isn't "block" and "ban" are two whole different things? I checked Bugment123123's profile and he's only been blocked for undefined period, not (site) banned. There should be much leeway in allowing anybody to take up blocked (rather than banned) user's old work and turn it into a
more contributive one instead.
Mamasanju (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But don't worry, I will ping all the participants in the old discussion and start it over again, just expect that you'll be called out as an archaic user. Mamasanju (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see you're in military at some point because of your usage of military slangs like "beck and call". However, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ARMY BASE!!! Mamasanju (talk)
